Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

GULF OIL REFINING BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

BRIGHTON SKYDECK BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

BRITISH WATERWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Green Belts (Boundaries)

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to what extent the creation of neat boundaries is a consideration of prime importance in fixing the limits of green belts.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): Not at all. What is important is that green belt boundaries should be sensible both as to the land they enclose and the route they take. Wherever possible they should follow easily recognisable natural features.

Mr. Cooke: While I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that the words contained in the Question were actually used by a planning officer

in the West Country as an excuse to include a magnificent piece of open country and a historic house and to take them out of the green belt and put them in the white area? Will the right hon. Gentleman resist that sort of thing?

Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the proposal about the Yate-Sodbury area, I cannot anticipate my decision.

Mr. Corfield: On that latter matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the importance of hurrying up the town map of the area on which this really depends?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with that.

Great Yarmouth (Local Government Commission's Report)

Mr. Anthony Fell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on how many occasions all the Commissioners of the Local Government Commission for England visited Great Yarmouth in connection with their proposals for Great Yarmouth contained in Report No. 9; and whether any of these visits took place during the holiday season between 1st July and 15th September.

Mr. Crossman: I have no information on these matters beyond what is in the Commission's published Report. The Commission is not responsible to me for the conduct of its reviews. That is a matter within its own discretion, subject of course to the statutory requirements.

Mr. Fell: I am sorry about this. I understand that about one and a half visits were paid to Yarmouth. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he really thinks that this is sufficient acquaintance with the problems of a town like Yarmouth fitting the Commission to lay down the future form of administration for a town of this sort for, perhaps, 200 years against the wishes of the people?

Mr. Crossman: I rather anticipated the hon. Gentleman, and I would like to say this to him. I think that the Commissions should be encouraged, or allowed by the Minister, to conduct their business in their own way. I think it far wiser for me to maintain the tradition that I ask them to tell me as a matter


of courtesy. I cannot insist that they should tell me the details of how they conduct their business.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not expedient that justice should not only be done but manifestly be seen to be done, and is it not a common experience that if visits are not paid to places affected like this a sense of injustice, however unjustifiable, is certain to arise?

Mr. Crossman: I think that we have to balance these evils. One of the difficulties here is that the Commission has finished its functions and, therefore, apart from its Report, there is no information available.

Mr. Fell: Great Yarmouth is one of those unusual towns which almost completely changes its character during the months of June, July and August. As I understand it, the Commission has never even been near the town during this period. How, then, is it possible for it to form a judgment of this sort?

Mr. Crossman: I am as anxious as is the hon. Gentleman that the Commissions should know all about a town before making recommendations. I must say that I would not accuse the Commissions of undue celerity in jumping to conclusions. They certainly spend a great deal of time visiting towns, and I do not want to encourage them to deepen their observations before reporting.

County Boroughs (Status)

Mr. Fell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on how many occasions there has been a reduction in status of county boroughs with a population in excess of 52,000 to non-county boroughs.

Mr. Crossman: None, Sir. Until 1958, such a change could take place only at the request of a county borough council. Since then, the Local Government Commission for England has had powers to make proposals of this kind and has done so in five famous instances. So far, none of them has been brought into effect.

Mr. Fell: Will the Minister at least promise to think most carefully and deeply before allowing this great

Nelsonian town to become the first example?

Mr. Crossman: We are a long way from that. The inquiry has not yet taken place, but I gather that it should be before next spring. However, I will give the hon. Gentleman one consolation, which is that, as far as I understand it, no county borough in the history of the country has been down-graded except at its specific request.

Financial Statistics

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will revise Local Government Financial Statistics 1962–63, presented to Parliament in February, 1965, to take account of the latest information.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The Local Government Financial Statistics 1962–63 summarised the final accounts of local authorities for that year; thus no question of revision arises. The accounts for 1963–64 are now being tabulated, and will be published as soon as possible.

Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave a figure of £15 million for rateborne expenditure when he spoke on rates on 5th May? Is it not extremely important that really accurate figures should be quoted to this House, in view of the great importance of rate-borne expenditure, and its relation one year with another?

Mr. MacColl: There tend to be accounting differences in the figures as they appear in local authority accounts and as they are paid out by us, but I quite agree that the more quickly the accounts are published the better.

Mr. Allason: But is it not important to have one series of figures, so that one year can be compared with another? A difference of £15 million is really rather excessive.

Mr. MacColl: I am afraid that in local government statistics, as in other statistics, difficult discrepancies often appear that have to be reconciled before the full value of the figures can be assessed.

Ports (Rates)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why ports such as Parkeston Quay, Harwich, are excluded from the assessment for payment of rates.

Mr. MacColl: Because, on the basis of assessment upheld by the courts, they do not show a profit.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is that not grossly unfair on a private enterprise port making a profit, next door to a British Rail port that does not? Can the Minister say what are the limited charges and facilities specially provided at Parkeston, and what figures have been allowed for renewals in the rating hypothesis?

Mr. MacColl: These matters of valuation are for the Inland Revenue. I understand that there is an appeal pending, so that this matter is sub judice.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Is it not extraordinary that the reason that this quay does not pay rates is that it is not making a profit? If, in future a private business does not make a profit, will it be relieved of rates?

Mr. MacColl: The position with regard to docks is different from that of other railway undertakings. Docks are treated especially under the Act of Parliament, and that is not a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Warrington-Risley (Development)

Mr. W. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement detailing his proposals for the development of Warrington-Risley.

Mr. Crossman: Since I made a statement to the House on 24th February, preliminary discussions have taken place with Lancashire County Council and Warrington County Borough Council. I hope very soon, with the agreement of the local planning authorities concerned, to appoint consultants to carry out a detailed study leading to proposals for

the designation of a suitable area under the New Towns Act, and for the consequent planning to the whole Warrington area.

Mr. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend any idea how long these discussions will go on? Will he give consideration to discussions not only with Warrington and Lancashire, but also with the rural district and abutting urban district councils?

Mr. Crossman: Certainly. District councils will, of course, be consulted. At present, we are making the main consultation that with Warrington because, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, this is a proposal for a doubling of the county borough and a new town where the county borough is deeply concerned. We are also consulting the county, since some of the area of the new town is outside the area of the county borough. In due course, when we have to consider the designation of sites, we shall consult all the local authorities concerned.

Coast Protection, Bournemouth (Cost)

Mr. Cordle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the cost of works of coast protection now being carried out by Bournemouth Corporation between Bournemouth and Boscombe piers; what application he has received from the local authority for Government aid in meeting this expenditure; and what grant is to be made available for the preservation of this area.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): Works estimated to cost £73,600 are being carried out to stabilise the cliff. An application for grant under the Coast Protection Act, 1949, was refused in January, 1964, on the ground that the instability had not been caused by erosion or encroachment by the sea. In these circumstances, there is no power to pay grant.

Mr. Cordle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of maintaining cliffs and protecting them from erosion falls heavily on the local rates? The beautiful areas of coasts and cliffs are surely a national beauty shared by so many that this should be a national liability. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that applications have


been made to help in respect of the immense charges and costs for work between Bournemouth Pier and Boscombe Pier—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Minister could say if he is aware as far as we have got.

Mr. Mellish: I recognise that there is a hardship and difficulty here. I am also told that the trouble here is that the damage to the cliffs is caused primarily by ground water inside the cliffs and it cannot be shown that it is in fact done by erosion by the sea. We have had our inspectors there. If the hon. Member is unhappy and not satisfied, I am willing to see him and a deputation of his people.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that for many years Bournemouth has boasted that it had the lowest rates in the country because it has failed to plough back enough money for the benefit of the community? Does he agree that Bournemouth should plough back some of the profits made from tourism instead of expecting the Government to subsidise its costs in this direction?

Royston

Mrs. Shirley Williams: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what consideration he has given to the expansion of Royston under the Expanded Towns Development Act.

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend appreciates the urban district council's wish to see its town expand, and he will be looking at this in the light of the review of the South East Study.

Mrs. Williams: In the light of the great need to find more areas to which the population can go in the Home Counties, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that this is a town which is well served by road and rail and that there is an almost unanimous desire for expansion? Is he aware that it is about to start the modernisation of community services of a kind that the present size of the town will find it almost impossible to bear?

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the advantages of Royston and he hopes not to delay for too long a decision on this matter.

Peterlee (Amenities)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what schemes have been submitted to his department for improvements in amenities in the new town of Peterlee; and what decisions he has reached.

Mr. MacColl: Since the Answer given to my right hon. Friend in November, 1964, my right hon. Friend the Minister has approved plans for playing fields, part of the sports and social centre in the northern part of the town, and for the extension of the existing golf course. He is considering proposals for an entertainments centre, to include bowling alley and cinema; for a town centre building to include halls for social activities and for the contribution by the development corporation towards the cost of providing a swimming bath.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that this new town has been in existence now for 18 years and it is about time that reasonable amenities were provided? Will he encourage the Development Corporation to get on with the job?

Mr. MacColl: I agree that the town very much needs these amenities, but my right hon. Friend is encouraged now that progress is being made by co-operation between the Corporation and the district council. He will certainly do all he can to facilitate it.

Rate Expenditure, Hertfordshire (General Grant)

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proportion of the Hertfordshire rate expenditure has been met by the general grant during each of the past five years; what proportion is estimated to be met by the general grant during the current year; and what proportion is forecast for next year.

Mr. MacColl: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lord Balniel: When the hon. Gentleman studies the figures I ask him to appreciate that, whilst the proportion of rate expenditure met by general grant in


the country as a whole has remained absolutely stable, the proportion so met in rapidly expanding counties has greatly diminished. Will he bear in mind that, if this trend continues, by 1970 Hertfordshire will have fallen £3 million behind other counties, which is the equivalent of a 1s. rate? Will he consider giving a special weighting factor for rapidly expanding counties?

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend can never be accused of undue enthusiasm for the general grant. This is a matter which he will bear in mind in his general review of grant legislation.

Mr. Allason: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary confirm that the figures he is about to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT represent approximately a 1 per cent. decrease regularly every year as compared with 55·1 per cent., which is the national average?

Mr. MacColl: As far as I can tell by mental subtraction of the figures before me, that is correct.

Following is the answer:
Rate expenditure is taken as expenditure that would be met from rates, assuming that there were no general grant. On that basis the proportion of general grant to Hertfordshire County Council's rate expenditure is as follows: 48·4 per cent. in 1959–60, 47·4 per cent. in 1960–61, 46·7 per cent. in 1961–62, 45·3 per cent. in 1962–63, 45·9 per cent. in 1963–64. Comparable figures for later years are not available, and I can make no forecast of the Council's expenditure for next year.

River Authorities (Form W.R.5)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will issue a circular to all river authorities requesting simplicity in their new application forms for the abstraction of water.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that Form W.R.5, issued by the river authorities, is complicated and if he will place a simplified version of this form in the Library.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. Is it in order for a Member to read a newspaper?

Mr. Speaker: I can only assume that it is immediately connected with the Question.

Mr. MacColl: I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) yesterday.
The forms are prescribed by the Water Resources (Licences) Regulations, 1965. They are complicated, but the questions spring from the Act itself. Form W.R.5 will not be used after tomorrow.

Mr. Mills: I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that information. Yesterday the Minister got it wrong. It is not the Act that is wrong. It is the forms which are wrong. I am very grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for now dealing with the matter. It will cause a lot of rejoicing, at any rate in the South-West.

Mr. MacColl: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman. I said that the forms spring from the provisions of the Act and the information required under the Act. This was made clear in the debate on the Regulations earlier this Session.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister make it absolutely clear? Is he saying that he is withdrawing this form? If so, will he accept it from me that a great number of farmers will be extremely relieved by his decision, if that is his decision? Will he also say what he is proposing to put in its place? Will he give an assurance that whatever appears in place of this monstrous document is at least decipherable and understandable by those who have to fill it in?

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The form will have completed its purpose by tomorrow, because under the Act the last day for applications for licences of right is tomorrow.

Mr. Graham Page: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary cannot brush this aside. Does he intend to amend the other forms which are just as complicated and which will apply after 30th June? Can he do nothing whatever to alleviate the hardship of those who have had to try to fill these forms in by 30th June and who, because they have not been able to answer all these complicated questions, may lose their licences of right?

Mr. MacColl: As to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend is in touch with the river authorities and has sent them a circular asking them to treat sympathetically people who are out of time in their applications for licences of right. Under the Act passed by the Conservative Government it is not possible for the authorities to give a licence of right, but they can take a broad view about giving a permissive licence.

Mr. Popplewell: These forms are made necessary by the 1963 Act. The type of question asked on the form, namely, the amount of water used in 1961, 1962, and 1963, a period when no records were kept by agriculturists, for example, makes it absolutely nonsensical. Will my hon. Friend ensure that persons who have not answered these questions correctly will not be penalised in the matter of obtaining licences to use water?

Mr. MacColl: I do not want to make any party point either about the Act or about the interpretation of the Act. This is a serious attempt to estimate water resources, of which there is a great shortage in the country. It is necessary, in order to find out how much water can be used in the future, to know what the demand is. That is the purpose behind the questions and behind the Act.

General Grant

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that under the present distribution formula the general grant contribution forms a diminishing proportion of the total budgets of rapidly expanding counties and that the situation will worsen next year; and if he will take steps to give financial assistance to such counties.

Mr. MacColl: As the noble Lord knows, this matter is being considered as part of the Government's examination of local government finance. I must ask him to await the outcome.

Lord Balniel: How much longer have we to wait? Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication at all when he is likely to introduce a new system of distribution? In particular, can he tell us when he proposes to implement his categoric and now laughable pledge to reduce the rates?

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend is at the moment working out the details of his proposals. He will, of course, have to consult the local authority associations before he finalises them and then he will present them to the House.

Mr. Allason: If, as the hon. Gentleman indicated in answer to a previous Question, a substantial amount of income is being lost through the present distribution of the general grant to counties with rapidly expanding populations, will he do something about it now rather than spin out the time before he has actually to take some action?

Mr. MacColl: Since the last Government lamentably failed to do anything about improving the form of the general grant, the sensible thing for my right hon. Friend to do is to have a proper scheme worked out before trying to amend the old rules.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under the present form of the general grant the 90,000 ratepapers of Bromley have to pay an extra £120,000 a year because of central charges put up by the Government since October?

Mr. MacColl: The financial arrangements for Greater London largely spring from legislation passed by the previous Government.

New Towns

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in planning new towns, he will site them on or near the coast where they are needed to assist and increase Great Britain's export trade with appropriate transport services to them from production centres.

Mr. Crossman: Many factors are considered in siting new towns; trade and good communication are among the most important.

Mr. Hughes: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the Government should press on with this when the inland towns are so over-burdened? Would he not agree that it would be a good idea for him to develop seaside towns to provide outlets for people and to encourage our export trade?

Mr. Crossman: We have thought of one or two. We are now doubling the size of Ipswich, which is not far distant from the sea. Leyland and Chorley can be said not to be far distant also, and Run-corn and Washington are adjacent to great ports.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Mortgages

Mr. W. T. Williams: asked the Minis-of Housing and Local Government what progress he has made with a scheme to make mortgages more readily available to those wishing to buy their own houses and/or to reduce mortgage interest rates.

Mr. Rhodes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress he has made in his discussions on the action he proposes to take to make mortgages more readily available to those wishing to buy their own houses.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he can now make a statement on progress in preparing his schemes to reduce interest rates for council houses and for houses to be bought for owner-occupation.

Mr. Grant: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress he is making towards easing the shortage of mortgage funds for house purchase and towards lowering the interest rate charged in respect of such mortgages.

Mr. Rose: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he proposes to take to assist existing home purchasers currently paying off their mortgages.

Mr. Crossman: In debate on 29th April I made my view plain that both the relief of the interest burden on local housing authorities and steps to help owner-occupiers would have to take their place in a national housing plan, for which I would be developing proposals in the course of the summer. I am not yet in a position to make a further statement on this.

Mr. William Clark: As interest rates are now running at between 6¾ per cent. and 7 per cent., has the Minister made any assessment of the cost of this subsidy to the Exchequer if there is a reduction in mortgage interest?

Mr. Crossman: Yes. This is one of the calculations we have been doing in preparation for the plan.

Mr. Williams: Whatever my right hon. Friend's long-term plan may be, since some building societies keep their reserves liquid to as much as twice the percentage that they are permitted by law to do, will he not make some inquiry and use such influence as he has to have a shot at getting these building societies to release more money down to the level of their legal permission?
Secondly, with regard to the reduction of mortgage interest rates, has the Minister given consideration—and, if so, with what result—to the possibility of making available a rebate on Income Tax at the standard rate to people who do not pay Income Tax at that rate? That, at least, would be a means of reducing the burden on the lowest-paid people.

Mr. Crossman: The proposal in the second part of my hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question—the Merrett-Sykes proposal, as it is usually called—is one that we are considering. As for the first part, the Government, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, do not control the lending policies of the building societies. Though it is true, as he says, that, on average, it is fair to say that their liquidity ratio is about 14 per cent. as against the minimum of 7 per cent., the freedom to make these decisions rests at the moment with the building societies themselves.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the Minister give the result of the calculation to which he referred when replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. William Clark)? Can he also assure the House that any improvements that he makes in arrangements for borrowers will relate back to, at any rate, this year, so that people shall not be discouraged, despite difficulties, in trying to take up mortgages now?

Mr. Crossman: I should require notice of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I shall be delighted to answer him if he will put down a Question. As to the second part, I am not prepared to discuss our intentions while they are under consideration.

Mr. Rhodes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that up to a few weeks ago there was an almost complete blockage of new mortgage money in the Tyneside area? I made a personal check with the leading building societies in the City of Newcastle. I appreciate that the position is now easing a little, but will my right hon. Friend treat the matter with some urgency? Owner-occupiers have had to put up with too many difficulties for too long, especially during the administration of the party opposite.

Mr. Crossman: We have, of course, every sympathy with owner-occupiers, and I am relieved to hear my hon. Friend confirm that the reduction of Bank Rate and the situation since has somewhat eased things for the building societies. It remains true that there are difficulties. What we would hope for is an improvement in the situation so that deposits will continue to advance in the building societies.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is not the building societies' difficulty that the value of their reserves is now far less than when the Socialist Government came in?

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, when considering preferential rates of interest to house purchasers through building societies, he will take into account the position of those who are borrowers from local authorities at fixed rates as high as 7¾ per cent.

Mr. Crossman: I do not know of any local authority that is currently asking for as high an interest rate as this on house purchase advances. But I certainly intend to take into account the position of people who borrow from local authorities.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was not concerned with current borrowing? May I have an assurance from him that all borrowers, whether old or new, will be treated alike by the Government in accordance with the true principles of Socialist democracy?

Mr. Crossman: I tried to answer the Question on the Order Paper, which was quite a different one.

Mr. Frank Allaun: When preparing his plans for future borrowers, to which we are looking forward very much, will

my right hon. Friend take into consideration the German system, under which the first, say, £1,000 of the loan is completely interest-free, thus avoiding giving big subsidies to those buying mansions and luxury flats?

Mr. Crossman: On a previous Question I was asked whether I would take into consideration the various methods. I can say that we shall take into consideration all the possible methods before we decide between them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will not the Minister at any rate answer the Question on the Order Paper, which is whether his proposals in respect of mortgage rates will take into account those who borrow through local authorities?

Mr. Crossman: The answer is,"Yes".

Council Houses

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has for legislation to deal with the under-occupancy of council houses.

Mr. Mellish: Most local authorities do their best to ensure that their tenants are in accommodation which is suited to their needs and my right hon. Friend does not think legislation is necessary.

Mr. Tuck: Has the Ministry given any general directive to councils as to the way in which they should deal with this problem?

Mr. Mellish: I refer my hon. Friend to the Milner Holland Committee's Report, which gave figures collected in 1963 from local authorities in the London area showing that 10 per cent. of dwellings were under-occupied and 7 per cent. were overcrowded. The Milner Holland Committee said that the figures showed a high degree of skill on the part of those responsible for local authority housing. I do not think my right hon. Friend needs to interfere in local authority housing matters.

Sir H. Butcher: Do I understand from the main Answer that it is the continued policy of this Government to subsidise houses which are grossly under-occupied?

Mr. Mellish: It is the policy of this Government not to tell local authorities how they should manage their own affairs.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that, had the last Government pursued a serious policy over municipal housing, they would have been able to produce sufficient houses to ensure that the homeless were housed and there would be no under-occupancy of houses as at present?

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend intends to encourage local authorities to build more houses for renting.

Houses to Let

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will give an estimate of the number of dwellings made available to let during the last 12 months, excluding those provided by local authorities.

Mr. Mellish: I regret that adequate information is not available.

Mr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House in two successive Parliaments have pressed for this information and that there is a serious lacuna in statistical records? If he cannot give the exact figures, surely with the help of local authorities, and possibly of the Board of Inland Revenue, some estimate can be given?

Mr. Mellish: It is known that since the 1957 Rent Act the number of dwellings made available for rented purposes has decreased by something around 1 million. We agree that lack of information in this and many other fields of housing is very important, and my right hon. Friend is doing what he can to see that our statistical information is improved.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the hon. Gentleman say when such information, which plainly is highly germane to discussion, among other things, of rent restriction, will be available?

Mr. Mellish: I cannot say off the cuff, but I can tell the right hon. Member that the information available is based on the 1961 census. The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) is on a good point. We ought to have better statistical information and we are trying to get just that.

Mr. Lubbock: Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to study the evidence by Ruth Glass to the Milner Holland Committee, in which she gave some calculations of the inter-censal change in the number of rented properties in Greater London? Could those techniques be used to give at least some idea of changes currently taking place?

Mr. Mellish: I think the hon. Member is quite right. The person to whom he referred has created a basis for the sort of work which could be done. When the House is given information it is entitled to be given it with certainty.

Tenanted Houses (Installation of Sanitary Fittings)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce legislation to enable private landlords to install minimal sanitary facilities in their properties with or without the consent of the tenants.

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend will bear this suggestion in mind, but his present view is that compulsory improvement should remain the responsibility of local authorities.

Mr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we want to encourage good landlords and if, as in many cases, it is the tenant who resists a decent improvement a good landlord is completely frustrated?

Mr. Mellish: Yes, but tenants have certain rights in the matter and they cannot be taken away from them. There is, for example, the case of the elderly person who does not want a house to be altered in any way. Many factors are involved and previous Governments as well as this Government have taken the view that tenants have certain rights. I agree that landlords also have certain rights to have improvements made. However, by means of better education of tenants we might be able to get something done.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that resistance by tenants to improvement of their homes both by private and public landlords is becoming one of the major obstacles to the improvement of rural housing? Will he look at this


matter again sympathetically because I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King) is on a good point?

Mr. Mellish: It would be fair to say that most of the tenants I have dealt with have been only too grateful for any improvements which have been suggested, but one gets the odd case in which a tenant will not have improvements done. If we can help by education we shall do so, but not by law.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is not the resistance to improvement coming, not from tenants, but from landlords? In spite of the increased help given under the 1963 Act, they are still resisting improvements and, in the view of many of us, landlords outside improvement areas should also be subject to compulsion to make necessary improvements.

Mr. Mellish: Under the 1964 Act authorities can compel owners to improve tenanted dwellings and areas in which there are tenanted blocks. It is true that certain tenants will not allow certain things to be done and this is a field for investigation.

Mr. Corfield: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) specifically emphasised rural districts where conditions are rather different in many cases from those with which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are familiar?

Leasehold Enfranchisement

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what correspondence he has had recently with landowners and property developers concerning leasehold enfranchisement; and if he will give an assurance that the legislation he will introduce will enfranchise all leaseholders without exemptions.

Mr. Crossman: As I mentioned in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on 17th May, I invited a number of landlords to send me their comments on leasehold enfranchisement. I have now had replies from most of these, including public and private landlords and also charitable trusts. In addition, I have received representations

from a number of other interests, including professional bodies. These comments will be of assistance in formulating proposals for legislation, but I cannot of course anticipate those proposals.

Mr. Hamilton: When will the White Paper on this matter be available? Will the gist of the information which has been given to my right hon. Friend by the bodies he mentioned be contained in that White Paper? Will he give an assurance that this legislation, to which we on this side attach a very deal of importance, will be introduced next Session and that it will be an implementation of our election pledge?

Mr. Crossman: I should like to have advance notice as to whether I shall put all the information which we get from these rather extensive replies into a White Paper. I should not have thought that there was validity in putting it all in a White Paper, although there is nothing secret about it. As to the nature of the proposals and the timing of the White Paper, I have nothing to add to what I said on the last occasion I was asked. I then said that when we had dealt with the Rent Bill my Department would go on to deal with leasehold enfranchisement. We are just about dealing with the Rent Bill and we are grappling with leasehold enfranchisement. We have done a lot of work on it already, but I cannot make any statement about dates.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As this legislation was also mentioned in the Queen's Speech, can the right hon. Gentleman say, aye or no, whether it is intended to introduce it this Session?

Mr. Crossman: I can say that it depends on when the Session ends. Unless the Session is more prolonged than I expect, I would expect to see some postponement of my intention in that regard.

Manchester (Overspill)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the unsatisfactory nature of peripheral overspill as a solution to Manchester's housing problem; and if he will give an undertaking that Manchester's future requirements beyond the present phase will be dealt with by way of new towns.

Mr. Crossman: I quite agree that unlimited peripheral development is not a satisfactory way of meeting Manchester's overspill needs. I have, however, already proposed two new developments under the New Towns Acts to help Manchester and its neighbours. If these proposals and other schemes planned by the city council are put into effect, the overspill requirements should be met for some time to come.

Mr. Shepherd: May I have a firm answer to at any rate one of my two questions? Will the right hon. Gentleman say that peripheral development as a means of catering for the future problems of Manchester is not to be considered?

Mr. Crossman: It would be impossible to give an assurance to the hon. Member that no kind of peripheral development will be allowed in the next 20 years. I should like to say that, but it is impossible to prevent things these days. I believe that it is wrong to plan in terms of close satellite towns or the mere spreading of the conurbation. That is why we have announced the Leyland-Chorley decision which is well away. Manchester, from this point of view, has not been very well treated, because the two positive proposals are not ideally situated there. In a sense they are semi-peripheral and are not very satisfactory but they were the best that could be found, and one of them was of Manchester's own selection.

Mr. Orme: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that many people in Manchester and Salford would still like peripheral development, particularly in Cheshire, where there is still a possibility of a site for a new town within reach of Manchester and in an area which is easily capable of development?

Mr. Crossman: It depends what one means by "peripheral". When one gets as far as Cheshire I would say that one is getting into an area which is only semi-peripheral at best.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRAFT INDUSTRIES (ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Cordle: asked the Prime Minister which Department is now to

be responsible for official assistance to the craft industries.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The Board of Trade retains general responsibility for the craft industries but Departmental responsibility for granting financial assistance would depend upon the particular purpose for which the assistance was required.

Mr. Cordle: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Crafts Council was inaugurated only a year ago as an independent body financed from private sources? Is he prepared to consider making a grant direct from the Board of Trade or the appropriate Ministry?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that when I was at the Board of Trade we instituted a Government grant to the Crafts Council, I think in 1948, and this was abolished in 1963. The hon. Gentleman is very active in this matter and I pay tribute to the work which he is doing. Whilst I cannot give a promise that there will be any assistance in the present case, we are always ready to consider requests for financial assistance in appropriate cases affecting crafts.

Mr. Ridley: Would the Prime Minister clarify his original Answer? Which Department would receive a deputation from the Council, composed of hon. Members from both sides of the House, in order to discuss a grant?

The Prime Minister: Obviously it would be the Board of Trade. As I said in my Answer, it has general responsibility and in 1948 it gave a grant. This was ended in 1963.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMMIGRATION AND SUPPLY OF LABOUR

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination existing between Government Departments on Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding immigration and the supply of labour; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; and, as I promised the House on 15th June, a full and detailed statement will be made in due course.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is apparently the view of the First Secretary that we would be mad to limit immigration because we need the extra manpower? Does not the Prime Minister agree, on the contrary, that the right way to provide extra manpower which some of our industries need is not by mass immigration but by eliminating the overmanning inside this country? Will he endeavour to convert his right hon. Friend to that point of view?

The Prime Minister: I recognise that the Question was put down by the hon. Member many weeks ago and I recognise his difficulties in this respect. As far as the statement made by my right hon. Friend in Sheffield is concerned, there have been a number of answers in the House about it and I ask the hon. Member to await a further statement to be made when we have studied Lord Mountbatten's Report.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the Prime Minister be more specific about "in due course"? When will the statement be made? Is he aware that every day there are statements and articles in the newspapers suggesting that the Government are completely reversing their previous policies? Is not it essential that this matter should be clarified very soon?

The Prime Minister: The position is that we have had the very valuable mission led by Lord Mountbatten and we had a report from him a few days ago. This will be studied and then we shall state what Government policy is.

Sir D. Renton: Meanwhile, bearing in mind that a junior Minister is responsible for co-ordinating the efforts of Cabinet Ministers who are responsible in this field, will the Prime Minister say what authority the junior Minister has for securing that co-ordination?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, who is an extremely active junior Minister, is co-ordinating—[Interruption.]—the late Government had no one doing it at all—and he is responsible, as I have told the House before, for co-ordinating the problem to which hon. Members in all parts of the House have given attention. He is responsible for co-ordinating in the problem of assimilation

and integration and the conditions in the big towns and cities where there is large immigration. He has no responsibility for immigration controls which, as I have said, are being considered in the light of the Mountbatten Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LIQUIDITY

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what progress he is making towards increasing international liquidity.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to Answers to similar Questions given on 22nd June by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Marten: Would the Prime Minister agree that as the United States and Britain are simultaneously trying to correct their balance of payments difficulties this will create an urgent situation? Is he satisfied that the Government are treating this matter urgently? Could he tell us, if not now, then when the Chancellor returns from Washington, what the Government have in mind towards increasing international liquidity?

The Prime Minister: I have felt for a long time that this is a highly urgent matter, quite irrespective of the balance of payments problem of individual countries. I should be very glad to send the hon. Gentleman the lengthy and detailed speech I made on this more than two years ago. I do not need him, or any of those who are moaning, to tell me about the urgency of the problem of liquidity. So far as my right hon. Friend is concerned, the urgency is shown by the fact that he has had discussions with the French Finance Minister, who has taken an initiative in this field and will be in Washington later today, discussing this matter with the Secretary to the Treasury of the United States Government.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that the most simple and immediate answer to this serious problem is to have a General Election as quickly as possible?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide of the subject. So far as international liquidity is concerned, this requires—as the late


Government found because they also took an interest in this matter—the agreement, in the first instance, of some 10 countries who have different views on this, and ultimately the agreement of 100 or so members of the International Monetary Fund. I do not, therefore, quite see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPACE INDUSTRY (MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATION)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister, if he will introduce legislation to improve Ministerial co-ordination for the space industry.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Marten: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are about five Ministers dealing with the question of space and if one puts down a Question about space and wants a coherent answer on a broad field one simply cannot get it from one Minister? Would he consider giving the Minister of Aviation, for example, overall responsibility for it; and, secondly, could he indicate whether the Government have a space policy?

The Prime Minister: Space itself is a very broad field. Indeed, I understand there are those who consider it to be limitless. If it is true there are five Ministers who, at some point or another, are responsible for this field, I think this has always been the case. If the hon. Gentleman thinks in terms of the engineering responsibility, the production responsibilities, foreign affairs and so on, he will find this is so. It depends how he frames his Question. I can certainly tell him, because I have been into this very much myself in the past few months, that the arrangements for inter-departmental co-ordination are very satisfactory on this subject and that certainly we do have a space policy.

Mr. Ridsdale: Can we have more information about space? Is the Prime Minister going to make public the findings of the Bondi Committee or is he going to put the Minister of Technology into space?

The Prime Minister: I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants more information on this very wide subject, and he will get

it if he puts Questions down to the proper Minister. I should like notice of the question about the publication of the Bondi Report.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Prime Minister keep in mind that the people of this country are more interested in living space than in outer space?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (STATEMENT)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Prime Minister if the public statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the British Broadcasting Corporation programme, "Gallery", on 20th May, 1965, about the credit squeeze represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Has the Prime Minister studied the effect of the credit squeeze, both on the building industry and on the building society movement? Could the Prime Minister answer this specific point? Is it the Government's intention to await the end of the credit squeeze before announcing the methods of implementing their election pledges about lower interest rates for house buyers?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman referred to the effect of credit restrictions on new housing starting and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend may have some interesting figures to give on this when housing is debated on Thursday—which may come as something of a surprise to the hon. Gentleman—so far as the effect on mortgage interest rates are concerned. As I have said, we are working on that problem and will have a statement about it quite soon.

Mr. Snow: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is evidence accruing that public relations consultants of some of the producers of components for the housing industry are blaming the credit squeeze when in reality the blame should be attached to poor programming management by the companies themselves?

The Prime Minister: It is not for me to make any comments about either public relations officers or about the building materials industry, but it is certainly the case that, as we suspected, there was no


programme of expanded building materials last year related to the expanded housing programme.

Mr. Higgins: Has the Prime Minister made any attempt to co-ordinate the timing of the policies of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the First Secretary? Would he not agree that we are now in a situation where there are a large number of inflationary wage claims in the pipeline, while at the same time the deflationary measures the Chancellor is taking will not take effect for some time? Is there not a danger that we shall have both a highly inflationary period and rising unemployment in development districts later in the year?

The Prime Minister: The restrictions imposed by the Government are to moderate the increase in credit, not to cause a squeeze or a reduction in industrial activity. This is simply illustrated by the fact that the limit for banks and other credit institutions provides for an increase in their lending this year by 5 per cent., which is what I mean when I talk about an increase and not a reduction. But if the hon. Gentleman is simply suggesting that we ought to pursue a more deflationary policy I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and meanwhile look forward to more support from him than from some of his hon. Friends in the efforts of my right hon. Friend to control prices and haulage rates.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN

Mr. Ennals: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in the furtherance of the aims of Her Majesty's Government's policy in Spain.

The Prime Minister: There has been no change in the Spanish position with regard to Gibraltar and no indication of any willingness on their part to make it possible for us to hold talks with them.

Mr. Ennals: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come to make further representations? Would my right hon. Friend also agree that when, a year ago, he decided to oppose the frigate deal, it was perfectly clear, even at that time, that the Spanish Government intended to bring pressure to bear upon Gibraltar?

The Prime Minister: We are having discussions and we make representations

to the Spanish Government whenever it is relevant to do so. But it is a fact that when this argument arose last year over Spanish frigates, I warned the present Leader of the Opposition that it was already clear that there was going to be a squeeze on Gibraltar by the Spanish Government. Yet at that time the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps for other reasons, wanted to do the frigate deal.

Mr. Fisher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, after eight months of complete inaction on behalf of Gibraltar, what proposals the Government have in mind in order to implement their undertaking, given in Command 2632, to defend and sustain the interests of the people of Gibraltar?

The Prime Minister: The interests of the people of Gibraltar are being defended and sustained. What I have said, and I hope the House agrees, is that we do not consider that a situation has been reached where we should start to take it out on Spain with any kind of direct attack on Spain. I hope the whole House agrees with that. The hon. Gentleman has a lot to explain, since this started a year ago. For reasons we all appreciate, his own Government were falling over themselves to supply frigates to Spain at that time.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, of course, hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that we must defend our rights in Gibraltar and the rights of the people who live there? Does he also accept that it is very foolish, in the industrial and economic situation in which Britain is, to import political considerations into our commercial policy and to deny this country orders which it would otherwise have?

The Prime Minister: What I do accept is that the right hon. Gentleman, being perfectly well aware of what the reaction of the Spanish Government was to the Gibraltar situation last year, was quite wrong, for the sake of what he thought would be a popular vote catching-measure, to offer—[Interruption.]

Mr. Shinwell: Does not my right hon. Friend recall that for many years before the Labour Government came in successive Conservative Governments imported


political prejudice into commercial policy between this country and the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: I think some right hon. Gentlemen opposite served a very long apprenticeship in Spanish matters.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Does not the Prime Minister realise that his right hon. Friend, for once, was completely inaccurate, and that the only impediments to trade with Russia which were put on were with the agreement of our N.A.T.O. allies?

The Prime Minister: I thought my right hon. Friend was referring to prejudice before the war. I was not aware that the Arcos raid was done with our N.A.T.O. allies.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Biggs-Davison. [Interruption.] Order. It is even difficult for the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) to know that he has been called.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the Prime Minister claims that he anticipated the present trouble over Gibraltar, was his worry over these frigates that they would be used to form a Spanish armada to capture Gibraltar? Secondly, may I ask him whether it is not the case that, as part of the support given by European countries to sterling recently, he has accepted financial aid from Spain for that purpose?

The Prime Minister: So far as the warnings a year ago are concerned—the exchange of courtesy which the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition and I had at that time—I specifically in one statement said that Spain would step up the pressure on Gibraltar and that this was a reason for not sending the frigates. We made clear a year ago, and we have made clear at all times since, that, while we want to see the development of peaceful trade and financial relations with Spain, this is a very different thing from providing them with arms, particularly when there is this trouble about Gibraltar.

Mr. Woodburn: Since the Question refers to Spain and not the Spanish Government, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would amplify his last answer and make clear that this country

is ready to give every support to the democratic forces in Spain which are hoping one day to become the Government?

The Prime Minister: I think that this raises a very much wider question because the Question relates to Gibraltar and does not refer to the democratic forces in Spain.

Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order. The Question does not mention Gibraltar at all. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would apply his mind to the Question.

Mr. Speaker: That does not raise a point of order. What is said appears in print on the Order Paper.

The Prime Minister: In answer to my right hon. Friend's supplementary question, the position has been made clear by us, and I thought by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that we look forward to the fullest flowering of democracy in all our European partners at the earliest possible moment, east and west of the Iron Curtain.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. WALL: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. Q13.
Hon. Members will have seen the communiqué published at the end of the meeting and I shall not at this stage take up the time of the House by referring to all the conclusions we reached and which are set out in the communiqué, copies of which are in the Library, and which, I hope, will be published later as a White Paper.
As is customary on these occasions, we opened with a review of world affairs. On this occasion, however, we were not content merely to review international tensions, but decided to do something about them. It was in these circumstances that we were able—I would hope


with the support of the whole House—to take an unprecedented initiative over Vietnam. We did this because it had to be done and because there was no one else to do it. And there is still no one else.
On Rhodesia, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite will understand, the Prime Ministers expressed their views very fully. Equally, they accepted that the responsibility for leading Rhodesia and, indeed, all Britain's remaining territories to independence must continue to rest with Britain. I informed them of the principles guiding us in our current discussions with Mr. Smith; but I thought it right to undertake that, if these discussions did not develop satisfactorily in a reasonably speedy time, the British Government would be ready to consider promoting a constitutional conference in order to ensure progress to independence on a basis acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
Apart from these major political problems, the meeting approved the terms of reference of the Commonwealth Secretariat and appointed its first Secretary-General. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join with me in wishing Mr. Arnold Smith every success for this new venture. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
We have in addition, following new and urgently needed initiatives in the field of trade, agreed that preparations should go forward for a Commonwealth trade conference, for a meeting of those most closely concerned with planning and for meetings between representatives of all Commonwealth countries to deal with questions affecting aviation and aircraft.
Let me summarise. This was a meeting in which the Commonwealth Prime Ministers showed their determination to make the best use of the particular characteristics of this family of nations. The Commonwealth, as we all have often said, represents the entire world—apart from the Communist sector—in miniature. If—and I know that the whole House will agree with me in this—the major problems that lie ahead are those of race and poverty, then the Commonwealth, bridging as it does the gulfs between white and non-white, rich and poor, has a vital rôle to play in neutralising the tensions of race and overcoming the divisions of wealth. In the initiative over Vietnam it has also

given itself a peace-making rôle in the world, not in any sense to supersede the United Nations or the Geneva co-chairmen, but to complement their work and to take action where others concerned are for one reason or another powerless to act.
Altogether, though there are difficulties ahead, and although no one wishes to suggest that in the Commonwealth we all think alike—indeed, I regard that as a source of strength rather than weakness—I am sure that the House will agree with many of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers that this meeting has given the Commonwealth a new sense of direction, a new sense of purpose and a new sense of unity in diversity.

Mr. Wall: While accepting that the Commonwealth has a great part to play in future, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the communiqué is more ambiguous than usual? Will he give the House some details of the programme of the peace mission to South-East Asia? Does he agree that to call a constitutional conference without the agreement of the Rhodesian Government would itself be an unconstitutional act?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, and certainly right hon. Members opposite, will realise that when there are 21 fully independent countries—we had once or twice to remind them that we were independent, too—each of which has a veto on any particular sentiment appearing in the communiqué, inevitably the communiqué is not always so clearly drafted as any of the 21 might wish. That was true last year, and it was true this year.
The Vietnam peace mission remains in being. We have not yet had a reply from one of the principal countries concerned, and if it is not possible to take off at this time we remain in being in the hope that the climate will improve. I am sure that we all feel that this initiative had to be taken. All of us will feel, equally, I think, that it has had a very valuable effect in getting many countries thinking about the policy on Vietnam.
On Rhodesia, all that I would say in reply to the hon. Member is that the discussions will be resumed again with


Mr. Smith and, as I have said before, I hope that there will lead to independence on a basis which all of us can support.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I associate myself with what the Prime Minister said about Mr. Arnold Smith and give him the good wishes of this side of the House? I should like to ask the Prime Minister two questions.
First, it is very important that there should not be ambiguity, in one respect, in relation to Rhodesia. Could the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that in considering the possibility of calling a constitutional conference in certain circumstances this will not infringe the pledge which the Commonwealth Secretary of State gave the House only a few weeks ago, that the convention that we do not legislate without the agreement of the Government of Rhodesia still stands? It is very important that that should be said by the Prime Minister, and now.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will recall the scorn which he poured on last year's Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué on the question of trade. He will recollect that a few weeks ago he held out the highest hopes for far-reaching, imaginative proposals which he said he would put before the Prime Ministers. Could he specify what they were and how they were received by his colleagues?

The Prime Minister: The whole possibility of a constitutional conference at this moment is hypothetical. If the negotiations in which we are engaged proceed satisfactorily, as I hope they will, then, as the communiqué said, a conference to prepare a constitution—the terms of independence—would presumably be an automatic and agreed measure and there would be no problems on the lines that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated. If not, we have said that we are prepared to consider promoting a constitutional conference of that kind. [Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition is going a very long way ahead in the negotiations.
The important thing is to try to get these negotiations advanced and not start looking at things which may not arise for six months or 12 months, and which

may not arise at all. I think that we are more concerned to get a satisfactory solution of this problem, which the right hon. Gentleman—I do not complain—left for his successor to deal with. He had to face the same problem at the conference—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not complain. He was right not to rush it, and we shall not rush it; and we will not be pushed around in these negotiations by hon. Members opposite.
In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's question on trade, the plain fact is that there was, I understand, no discussion of trade last year at all. This year, we had two full days on trade, in the course of which we put forward the initiatives—I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy; obviously, there is not time to do it at Question Time—which were accepted by our colleagues, leading to a Commonwealth Trade Ministers' conference to see what can be done to ensure that all of us buy more from one another, which is what we want.

Mr. Michael Foot: In view of the extremely welcome section in the part of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué referring to Vietnam, in which they call upon all sides to show restraint in military measures, will the Prime Minister comment upon the fact that there does not seem to have been restraint in Vietnam so far? Will he tell us whether he proposes, either on his own behalf or on behalf of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers generally, to make representations to those who are apparently stepping up the military action in Vietnam, in particular, the bombing of North Vietnam?

The Prime Minister: Our appeal for restraint, which, obviously, must be restraint based upon reciprocity between both sides to the dispute, was made so that the mission can do its work unimpeded by a worsening or an escalation of the war in Vietnam so that it would, I think, be considered by all the countries concerned as soon as it becomes clear that there are enough acceptances from both sides to the dispute to enable the mission to do its work. We felt that if we got those acceptances, we had the right to make that appeal.

Mr. Sandys: In pursuing the point raised by my right hon. Friend about Rhodesia, naturally I do not wish to


make the negotiations any more difficult, but to make sure that the negotiations go forward in a proper atmosphere may I ask the Prime Minister to reaffirm the assurance given by his right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary that the British Government will recognise and adhere to the convention that the Parliament here in Westminster does not legislate on matters which are within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Rhodesia? That is absolutely essential to start the negotiations on a proper footing.
Is the Prime Minister aware that there was surprise and, I think, dismay that the strong condemnation of racial discrimination which appeared in the communiqué was not matched by any condemnation of the naked aggression by Indonesia against Malaysia? Does not the Prime Minister think that a Commonwealth country which is attacked by another country is entitled to full moral backing and that a mild expression of sympathy is totally inadequate?

The Prime Minister: We have certainly no intention whatever of departing from the convention referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. We intend to go forward with the negotiations and discussions and I hope that no question will arise in which there could be a clash or a difficulty of this kind. None of us can foresee the future and none of us can foresee, in this situation, the growth of tensions and the actions that will have to be taken. We are negotiating genuinely to try to get an agreed solution based, as we have said, on continued and unimpeded progress to majority rule. It is on that basis that we are negotiating. I think that everyone will agree that the situation cannot be left in Rhodesia where it is. We want to deal with it by negotiation.
With regard to the reference to Malaysia, I share the right hon. Gentleman's disappointment with the wording of the communiqué. We could not dictate it. We could not tell our 20 colleagues what they had to say. They were, however, left in no doubt about the vigour and determination with which a number of us have responded to the needs of Malaysia and will continue to do so as long as that is necessary.
Others of our colleagues, while not prepared to associate themselves with any kind of military support or expression that might be taken as implying military support have made it clear that they are giving a great deal of diplomatic support and using their valued offices in trying to bring a peaceful settlement of this problem. It is right to say that the Prime Minister of Malaysia has very much welcomed the statement which we have made.

Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend say what progress, if any, was made towards setting up a Commonwealth Assembly?

The Prime Minister: The reason that this does not appear in the communique is that this proposal received less than general support at the conference and, therefore, did not make progress.

Mr. Turton: Is the Prime Minister aware that his use of words to the effect that if negotiations with Rhodesia are not concluded speedily might be interpreted as a time limit on the negotiations and that, if so, this would impair the negotiations? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that he is not thinking in terms of a time limit?

The Prime Minister: I think that all of us agree that the negotiations must be given full time to see whether we can reach agreement. That has been the basis and over the past year we have shown this in the negotiations by the attitude of the previous Government and of the present Government. At the same time, it will be realised that events and the pressures in the situation will not allow of a situation in which nothing at all is done. I think that Mr. Smith and the African leaders would agree with that. Therefore, nobody, I think, would want—neither the British Government, the Rhodesian Government nor anyone else—to pursue dilatory methods in these negotiations. We must make progress. We intend to give ample time to see that progress can be made.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot deal with this by way of supplementary questions. The Prime Minister. Statement.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON MEDICAL EDUCATION

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for inflicting a second statement on the House.
Her Majesty the Queen has been pleased to approve the recommendation that a Royal Commission on Medical Education should be appointed with the following terms of reference:
To review medical education, undergraduate and postgraduate, in Great Britain, and in the light of national needs and resources, including technical assistance overseas, to advise Her Majesty's Government on what principles future development—including its planning and co-ordination—should be based. In particular, in the light of those principles and having regard to the statutory functions of the General Medical Council and the current review by that Council of recent changes in the undergraduate curriculum, to consider what changes may be needed in the pattern, number, nature or location of the institutions providing medical education or in its general content; and to report.
I am glad to be able to tell the House also that the Queen has approved the appointment of the right hon. the Lord Todd as its Chairman. The names of the other members will be announced later; there will be approximately equal numbers of medical and non-medical members.
The appointment of this Commission, under such distinguished chairmanship, marks the importance which the Government attach to a fundamental review of the whole structure of medical education: its organisation, content and claims on resources. Meanwhile, we are carrying out a review of the immediate measures which can be taken in the field of medical manpower, and the appointment of this Commission will not delay any action which needs to be taken as a result of this review.

Mr. Wood: Is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome the setting up of this Commission and, in particular, the willingness of Lord Todd to serve as its Chairman? Is he further aware that we particularly welcome the inclusion in the terms of reference of the general content of medical education? We believe this to be extremely important.
Would the Prime Minister agree, however, that with this most recent statement

a clear pattern seems to be emerging that whereas the Labour Party at the election adopted specific positions and made specific promises these have now become, first, the inquiry under his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster into certain of the social services, that contrary to public expectation we had the Royal Commission on the trade unions and that with this new Royal Commission we are given something instead of a specific pledge by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to set up four new medical schools at least?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the first part of what he has said. His second part went rather wide of the subject, into a number of other inquiries into which it would not be appropriate for me to follow him at this stage, although I am prepared to do it if that is what the House so desires and it is in order.
I am sure that the whole House feels that the problem of medical education has not been given the priority which it should have had in the past and that there have been too few coming forward, or getting a chance to come forward, for medical education. Therefore, something had to be done. In this case, however, the right hon. Gentleman knows from experience that there are deep feelings, both in the universities and in the medical profession, which, I think, require the establishment of the Royal Commission.
As to immediate action, as my right hon. Friend has made clear, and as I made clear in my statement, the establishment of this Royal Commission does not preclude earlier action; and I referred to what that earlier action might be.

Mr. Lubbock: Have the Government decided that, pending the review by the Royal Commission, no new medical schools will be established? How long will it be before its report can be expected? Will the Prime Minister consider the appointment to the Commission of a representative of the British Medical Students Association?

The Prime Minister: There is certainly no decision that there can be no new medical schools before the Royal Commission has reported. As I said, we are carrying out an urgent review of immediate measures which can be taken, and


action here, of course, can be taken without waiting for the Commission. Naturally, I cannot estimate how long the Commission's work will take until the members have met and considered what kind of problems lie ahead.
I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's suggestion for a particular appointment to the Commission.

Mr. Woodburn: I welcome the instituting of this very important study by the Royal Commission, but can my right hon. Friend say whether the terms of reference will include the co-ordination of the already existing many authorities for granting degrees, and will it have authority also as regards co-ordinating internationally, if possible, the standards of medicine which are to be accepted internationally, as many doctors find, when they move from one country to another, that they have to requalify, which seems to be a dreadful waste of effort and study?

The Prime Minister: I said that, among other things, the terms of reference would be
to advise … on what principles future development—including its planning and co-ordination—should be based".
I have referred also to the vitally important need for securing enough provision for training those who will do their medical work overseas. The question of the recognition of degrees given by overseas bodies is, of course, a matter for the General Medical Council.

Sir K. Joseph: But will the Prime Minister answer my right hon. Friend's question and tell us what has happened to the clear and categoric pledge given by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on 27th July last year that a Labour Government would set up four new medical schools at least?

The Prime Minister: As I made clear, my right hon. Friend and the other Ministers concerned are at present reviewing the needs for an urgent expansion. We shall make a statement in due course.
The right hon. Gentleman, who spent half his time at this Box towards the end of the 13 years of Conservative Government saying that nothing could be done, whether on land reform or anything else, is not really in a position to complain that things have not been done in eight months.

Dr. Bray: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that mental health will come within the purview of the Royal Commission, and that the re-education of doctors in the course of their careers will also come under review by the Commission?

The Prime Minister: The answer to both my hon. Friend's questions is, "Yes, Sir".

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: Does the term "medical education" include dental education?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; that is not intended.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Royal Commission have power to command research in depth into the complete needs of medical manpower in the three sectors at present in existence, plus the industrial health service which we hope eventually to see established? Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Willink Committee, set up by the previous Government, made such a mess of this that we are still trying to recover from it?

The Prime Minister: While not necessarily associating myself with criticism of any previous inquiry, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Royal Commission will, of course, have very thorough powers to get all the information needed for its work. Whether it will be decided that the particular point raised by my hon. Friend is required, is a matter for the Commission to determine when it is set up.

Lord Balniel: I warmly welcome the Royal Commission, although, with other hon. Members, I regret the apparent postponement of the building of the promise four new medical schools. Does not the Prime Minister agree that, as important as training for new staff is, the question of retaining existing qualified medical staff? What is happening to the proposed legislation to set up an independent corporation to advance loans to general practitioners for improving their practices?

The Prime Minister: The question of legislation is not a matter covered by the Royal Commission. It is a matter on which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has already reported to the


House the result of discussions he having with the medical profession.
I thank the noble Lord for his welcome to the Royal Commission. As regards the regret which he expressed, I can only say that he, like so many of his right hon. and hon. Friends, developed a capacity for regret only after 16th October last year.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this now.

ENTERTAINMENT CLUBS

3.55 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower local authorities to require safe and hygienic conditions in entertainment clubs; to authorise the registration of such clubs by local authorities and the exercise of powers in connection with such registration; and for connected purposes.
The object of my proposed Bill is to permit a local authority to require that an entertainment club be registered with such authority and to see that the club's premises are safe, have satisfactory lighting, ventilation and sanitation, and are provided with adequate fire precautions. The Bill would also permit entry by an official of the local authority and by the police.
My colleagues and I who were on the Private Bill Committee on the Manchester Corporation Bill heard some rather horrifying evidence from the Chief Constable of Manchester and from its fire officer about the so-called clubs to which I refer. They are unregistered, unlicensed, coffee-dance clubs, "beat" or jazz clubs. They are not licensed premises, as no alcohol is served in them, and they do not come under the Refreshment Houses Act because they do not serve the casual public, entry being as though to a club.
I realise that young people must have somewhere to go to take part in or enjoy jazz and "beat" music, and we were told that there were in Manchester a number of such clubs to which no exception was taken. But the chief constable gave us evidence of seven or eight clubs which were in empty warehouses, seedy office blocks and cellars to which young people came from far and wide, sometimes from as far as 40 miles or more away in coach loads, as Manchester served neighbouring towns and a large district, including towns as far afield as Bradford.
These clubs served coffee, tea and "Coke", and they were used often by girls who were missing from home, by absconders from approved schools, by traffickers in drugs and by people with serious criminal convictions. They were dirty, we were told, and badly lighted,


and some had disgraceful sanitary facilities. In one case there was only one toilet, behind a blanket, which was used by both men and women. One such club had been operated by a man with convictions for robbery, burglary and housebreaking, another by a man with 30 convictions for larceny. We were told by the chief constable that some of the frequenters of these places had been convicted of supplying or possessing drugs. Apart from "purple hearts", Indian hemp was mentioned, and in one case heroin. Some of those resorting there usually carried offensive weapons.
These clubs in Manchester go under exotic names such as the "Forty Thieves Club", and the "Heaven and Hell Club". The police, although not having powers of entry, did get a warrent for a raid on one of them, and at two o'clock on a Sunday morning earlier this year they found 42 young people there of ages from 13 to 16. There were seven aged 13, nine aged 14, 12 aged 15 and 14 aged 16. When these young boys and girls were taken to the police station and their parents were told, the reaction of the parents was one of horror. They had no idea that their children were there in such surroundings and they were very grateful for being told about it. But, naturally, they also said, "If there are such dreadful places, why are they allowed to exist?". That, I think, is a question we might ask ourselves.
The fire officer told us of mean basements so packed that it was scarcely possible to get in, of no means of escape except through the entrance and of one case where the ceiling was a draped canopy fabric with infra-red heaters within 10 inches. Another had a nailed-up exit and was full of loose tables and chairs.
If these "beat" clubs had been licensed premises, serving alcohol, their use would certainly have been refused by the magistrates, and we must ask ourselves why young people particularly should have to use such perilous and dangerous places. So, quite naturally, the Private Bill Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, gave Manchester Corporation the Clause for which it was asking, namely, power to register such clubs and to refuse to register if the premises were unsafe, or unventilated, or had unsatisfactory sanitation, or were not provided

with adequate protection against fire and a second means of escape. It was also given power to impose conditions relating to public order and decency and to strike a club off if it was being conducted in a disorderly manner, or was the resort of criminals. It also gave power to the police and officials of the local authority to enter such clubs.
The question arises whether such powers are required by any other public authorities in other parts of the country. On making inquiries in London of magistrates, welfare officials and the police, I am satisfied that these powers are so required. I found much the same state of affairs in the south of England.
There are about half a dozen such coffee or "beat" clubs in Soho, one or two in the suburbs and possibly in seaside resorts and in Birmingham. Admission to the London clubs is generally by membership fee of 5s., with perhaps an entry fee of 7s. 6d. or 10s. Similarly, the police in London have no power of entry into these places. A scribbled list of members is kept by the door and that constitutes the club. There is no committee, only the owner.
These places are often frequented by boys and girls who begin to be picked up by the police outside the clubs from 2 a.m. onwards every Saturday and Sunday mornings and often their case is for care and protection. One welfare officer told me that the clubs seem to have no fresh air or ventilation, are decidedly sleazy, often have an appalling stench and that some young girls sleep all night there.
In one raid by the police with a warrant, the floor was found to be covered with "purple hearts" and "black bombers"—a sort of alternative drug—and knives and other weapons were stuck down behind the seats. On one occasion, an 18-year-old boy had parcels of 1,200 "purple hearts" on him, tied up in parcels of 10. These cases are not unusual in London. In last week's issue of the local newspaper, in my constituency, on the front page there were two cases headlined. The first was:
60 drug tablets in one weekend.
That referred to a 19-year-old boy. When asked by the magistrate where he got the tablets he replied:
I picked them up in the West End. They are being pushed at me in coffee bars.


The other headline was:
Student held on hemp charge.
This referred to a 23-year-old student.
Another case brought to my attention is that of a 16-year-old boy who was a good athlete. He followed a "beat" group to London from his village, 40 miles away, and became addicted to "purple hearts". He now suffers very bad health as a result. One wonders how these drugs leave the manufacturers and are distributed among boys and girls.
My Bill would be permissive and would enable local authorities to take powers similar to those we gave to Manchester. I hope that the council of your own constituency, Mr. Speaker—Westminster—might find it useful. There are exceptions to the ambit of the Bill. It would exempt charitable clubs, local authority youth clubs, sports clubs, clubs for physical training and recreation, all normal clubs where drinks are served and, of course, licensed premises, theatres, cinemas and places for public amusement and dancing. All these are exempted.
The proposed Bill has the support of church and welfare organisations, magistrates, chairmen of juvenile courts and others, including hon. Members on both sides of the House. It would become a useful Measure and today, at its first hurdle, I hope that it will commend itself to hon. and right hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gresham Cooke, Mr. Brooke, Mr. Holman, Sir A. Meyer, Mr. English, Mr. Dance, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. Tilney, and Mr. Lubbock.

ENTERTAINMENT CLUBS

Bill to empower local authorities to require safe and hygienic conditions in entertainment clubs; to authorise the registration of such clubs by local authorities and the exercise of powers in connection with such registration; and for connected purposes, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd July, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

Orders of the Day — RENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

4.7 p.m.

Sir Martin Redmayne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not for one moment question the Chair's right of selection, but could you not reconsider your selection of Amendments in respect of Clause 27, which deals with the problem of agricultural tied cottages? This matter was not discussed at excessive length in Committee and it is of the greatest importance.
Hon. Members on this side of the House who represent agricultural constituencies could not, of course, all be on the Committee and, in any case, surely have a right to express their strong opinions on the Floor of the House. I have considered whether we could hang a reasonable debate on the Government Amendments, but I do not think that it is possible. We did put down an Amendment to leave out the Clause, but I realise that that is not very acceptable on Report.
Therefore, last night I put down Amendment No. 120 on a particular and important point, in page 17, line 12, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert:
(c) whether suspension of the execution of the order or its execution without suspension or further suspension would cause greater hardship to the occupier, or to the owner or to a person whom the owner employs or intends to employ and for whose occupancy he requires the premises.
I assure the Minister that it is not our intention to try to delay the proceedings of the Bill. I do not want to delay its consideration now, but I am speaking for a useful and informed minority in the House. I ask you, Sir, to consider selecting Amendment No. 120.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. In the intervals of other things going on in the small hours this morning, I read columns 833 to 896 of the OFFICIAL REPORT Of the Standing Committee, which were particularly concerned with this matter. The right hon. Gentleman is very persuasive. I will relent and select Amendment No. 120.
Perhaps I may now discuss with the House how we are to deal with the early


matters in our proceedings. The first two new Clauses seem to me to be rather close together, as it were, and perhaps it would be best to have a general discussion on new

(1) Where a dwelling-house is held for the purpose of being available for occupation by a minister of religion as a residence from which to perform the duties of his office and the dwelling-house has been let on a regulated tenancy, then if—


a) the tenant has been given notice in writing before the commencement of the tenancy (or, if the tenancy was created before the commencement of this Act, not later than six months after the commencement of this Act) that possession may be recovered under this section; and


(b) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house; and


(c) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required for occupation by a minister of religion as such a residence;


the court shall make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, whether or not it would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.


(2) In the application of this section to Scotland for any reference to a minister of religion there shall be substituted a reference to a minister or full-time lay missionary of any religious denomination.

and new Clause No. 11—Recovery of possession of house acquired for retirement:


(1) Where a person who has acquired a dwelling-house for his residence in anticipation of his retirement (in this section referred to as the owner) has thereafter let the dwelling-house on a regulated tenancy and the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied, then if—



(a) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house; and


(b) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required as a residence for the owner and that the owner has retired;


the court shall make an order for possession of the dwelling-house whether or not it would have the power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933.


(2) The said conditions are—


(a) that not later than the commencement of the tenancy (or if the tenancy was created before the commencement of this Act, not later than six months after the commencement of this Act) the landlord has given notice in writing to the tenant that possession may be recovered under this section; and


(b) that the dwelling-house has not since the commencement of this Act been let on a regulated tenancy with respect to which the condition mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection was not satisfied.


(3) For the purposes of this section the definition of retirement shall be that the person complies with the conditions laid down in section 20(2)(a) of the National Insurance Act 1946.

Mr. Harold Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What considerations guided you in your omission of Amendment No. 121? It stands in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends and is in page 33, line 17, at the end to insert:
(10) Where disrepair has been taken into account in the determination and registration of a fair rent in accordance with paragraph 8(a) of this Schedule the rent officer shall serve upon the landlord a direction to carry out such repairs as are necessary to put the dwelling into good repair within such period as the rent officer may deem appropriate, such period not to exceed one hundred and twenty days from the date of issue of the direction.
(11) Should the landlord fail to comply with the requirements of the last foregoing paragraph the registered rent shall be decreased progressively by ten per cent. calculated to the

Clause No. 1 together with new Clause No. 2—Recovery of possession of dwelling-house held for occupation by minister of religion:

nearest whole penny, for each calendar month following the expiration of the direction, such decrease continuing until either the rent is nil, or such time as the landlord has completed the repairs specified in the direction, such completion being notified to the rent officer in writing and confirmed by the rent officer by visual examination, or by such visual examination as he has caused to take place to his satisfaction.

(12) Any loss of rent incurred by the landlord arising from the application of the last foregoing paragraph shall not be subsequently recoverable by the landlord.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but practice reveals that the Chair is very ill-advised to start explaining its reasons for selection. If the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of discourtesy, I do not propose to do it.

Mr. Harold Walker: As a relative newcomer, may I have your guidance about the procedure in this matter, Mr. Speaker? When hon. Members have in mind considerations which they seek to put into legislation, they obviously seek to catch your eye on Second Reading, as I did without success. They may then try to be a member of the Standing Committee concerned so as to bring these matters to the notice of the Committee. But if, having failed to secure a place on the Standing Committee, they are also unable to bring the matter forward at this stage, they are excluded from presenting their arguments. If that is to happen without explanation, the individual hon. Member would seem to be impotent in this respect.

Mr. Speaker: That may be, but if one selected all the Amendments without making some choice we should have a formidable burden to get through and I doubt whether any Government could manage what they have to do. That is why one has to make these selections. I assure the hon. Gentleman that none of these decisions is made save with the greatest care and anxiety and the maximum consultation. We try to get the answer right, but it is impossible to oblige everybody and to get the task performed.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: May I revert to your indication of the appropriate way to handle the earlier Clauses, Mr. Speaker? I would be grateful if you would clarify what you have in mind. Is it your intention that we should discuss new Clauses No. 1 and No. 2 and No. 11 and have a Division on new Clause No. 11 at the appropriate stage, if that is desired? Secondly, what do you have in mind about the Amendments to new Clause No. 1 and to new Clause No. 2?
Those Amendments are to the new Clause No. 1, in line 2, leave out "on a regulated tenancy";
Leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert:
the letting shall not create a regulated tenancy but shall create a tenancy which shall be a protected tenancy within the meaning of section 28 of this Act";
In line 20, at end add:
(3) The provisions of this section shall apply to a person owning a dwelling-house which

he intends to occupy as his sole residence, or to provide as the sole residence of his widow or of one or more of his children provided that—

(a) he registers his intention on a registry to be maintained by the Minister,
(b) only one such registration may be made by any person, and
(c) any dwelling-house of which the owner recovers possession in accordance with this subsection and which is subsequently relet shall not come under the provisions of this section.

In new Clause No. 2, in line 3, leave out "on a regulated tenancy";
Leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert:
the letting shall not create a regulated tenancy but shall create a tenancy which shall be a protected tenancy within the meaning of section 28 of this Act".
I do not know whether you think that it would be a good idea to discuss the Amendments, after we have dealt with the Clauses themselves, in a debate picking up all five Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: That is right. I think that we should have a general debate on new Clauses Nos. 1, 2 and 11 and the Amendments to new Clauses Nos. 1 and 2. It will probably be best to have a general debate on the whole lot. As for calling new Clause No. 11 for a Division, I will wait to see what happens to new Clause No. 1, because the problem might not arise.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I was not quite sure whether it was your intention to have one discussion on the Amendments to new Clauses Nos. 1 and No. 2 and the new Clauses.

Mr. Speaker: If I may use the description without offence, I think that we should have a sort of Second Reading debate on all this topic and then I will call the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to new Clause No. 1 for a decision in due course.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: And the Amendments to new Clause No. 2?

Mr. Speaker: I think that those are the same and would necessarily fall with the Amendments to new Clause No. 1.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With respect, I do not think so, Sir. They put the same proposition in respect of the different subject matter of the two new Clauses.

Mr. Speaker: I will not waste time about it. Should the right hon. Gentleman so desire, I will call the Amendments to new Clause No. 2 for a Division, if that is required, after our general

New Clause No. 1. —(RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSES.)

5
(1) Where a person who has occupied a dwelling-house as his residence (in this section referred to as the owner-occupier) has let the dwelling-house on a regulated tenancy and the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied, then if—


(a) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house; and


(b) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required as a residence for the owner-occupier or any member of his family who resided with the owner-occupier when he last occupied the dwelling-house as a residence;


10
the court shall make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, whether or not it would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.



(2) The said conditions are—


15
(a) that not later than the commencement of the tenancy (or if the tenancy was created before the commencement of this Act, not later than six months after the commencement of this Act) the landlord has given notice in writing to the tenant that possession may be recovered under this section; and


20
(b) that the dwelling-house has not since the commencement of this Act been let by the owner-occupier on a regulated tenancy with respect to which the condition mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection has not satisfied.

—[Mr. Crossman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.15 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The House will forgive me if I rearrange my thoughts. I had not anticipated that the debate would cover new Clause No. 11 as well as the Amendments, and it may be possible that I shall ask the House for permission to speak again, if that is necessary, because I have not covered all the subject. However, I am sure that it is wise to discuss the subject in this form, because, as we have found from the Committee stage, all these Clauses cover one general problem, which was one of our major preoccupations in Committee and on which a number of proposals were made.
The preoccupation centred around the problem of whether the owner-occupier who made his intentions clear to a tenant on letting should have any special right to reoccupation of his dwelling, a better and stronger right than that of others. The more we reflected on this subject, the more the Committee as a whole came to the view that there was a special problem of the owner-occupier. Some hon. Members held the view that it was only when the owner-occupier had made

discussion. I hope that no confusion now remains.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very much obliged, Sir.

his position indubitably clear by letting on a fixed term that he should have this special right, while others, including myself, felt that it should not be limited only to fixed-term letting, but that we should also deal with periodic lettings.

We took the view that there was justification for the demand that people who let their homes and went away and who then wanted to get back should have at least special priority on return over ordinary lettings. That seemed to be the general principle and we discussed it at some length and various proposals were made.

I want to make clear what we have put forward in new Clauses No. 1 and No. 2 and I will try to describe why we have made these suggestions and why I reject the Amendments. In a sense, acceptable or not, my arguments for rejecting the Amendments to new Clause No. 1 are the same as for rejecting the Amendments to new Clause No. 2. Thirdly, I will comment on new Clause No. 11.

By the way, I should add that there is one other thought which has been in my mind. In addition to the problem of retirement, in which the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) is keenly interested, the problem of those who own a house and who do not merely


go overseas and then return to it, but who want to retire to it, a circumstance which may require special treatment, I am also keenly interested in the problem of the farmer who wants to be able to let an agricultural tied cottage not as an agricultural tied cottage, but vacant, and whether it is possible to have a Clause covering him as well. I have to say that I have failed to find a way of getting a Clause conveniently to cover that situation and I have therefore had to disappoint myself.

I return to new Clause No. 1, the first basic proposition which we put forward. Our main purpose in this Clause is to help the owner-occupier who is away from home. The Clause will help him not only if he is a Service person who is overseas and not only if it is a fixed-term letting, for it will affect periodic letting as well.

The first condition under which such a person will be helped is that he must have told the tenant beforehand. That is very important. He must have made it clear to the tenant that the condition on which the tenant is allowed to go into the house is that he gets out when the owner-occupier comes back. I am trying to express the general view of the Committee, which was that when the tenant is breaking a clear contract, his security should be substantially reduced. Therefore, the owner-occupier would have had to have told the tenant.

That means that notice must be given beforehand, if it is a regulated tenancy after the Bill comes into operation, or for a house let before the Bill, within six months of the Bill becoming law. That is how we cover existing tenancies. It is either in advance of the commencement of the tenancy or within six months of the Bill coming into operation. If the owner-occupier has given the tenant that notice, then the court must grant the owner-occupier the return of his house unconditionally and without delay, although the court will still have the inherent right to give a delay of up to six weeks.

I know that there are two objections to the Clause as it stands which are felt very strongly by hon. Members opposite. They ask, first, why it does not cover furnished lettings. The Clause deals with the letting of houses unfurnished and not

furnished. It does not cover furnished lettings because, as we all know, they are covered by different legislation and the position of the landlord of furnished lettings has always been far stronger than that of the landlord of unfurnished lettings. The tenant of furnished accommodation has always been in a weaker position. If it is a fixed term letting, the tenant has no security of interest under the existing law, which we are not changing. The changes in the existing law which we are making do not affect the superior position of the landlord in that case. On the other hand, if it is a periodic letting, the tenant's rights are severely limited and the rent tribunal is not permitted to give more than a limited advance.

We felt that there was no reason to change the existing law on furnished lettings, which would carry on basically as it is with the one proviso of the extension of the maximum period which the furnished tribunal could give from three to six months.

The basic disagreement on this issue between the two sides of the House is that hon. Members opposite seek to take this class of tenancy outside rent regulation altogether. That is the purpose of their proposals.

I think I am right in saying that the Amendments would destroy the rights of the tenant altogether. He would not be within the field of rent regulation. Indeed, the Opposition would like the tenant not to be under basic protection at all, so that he would not be entitled even to due notice and to attend at the county court. He would have no rights under the law.

As I said before, we cannot accept that. We must, in all these matters, try to strike a balance between the evil suffered by a tenant and the evil suffered by a landlord, for what is security for one is insecurity for the other. We have to find a fair balance, and we believe that a fair balance is to provide basic security to both sides. A tenant must have the right to say to a landlord, "You have to give me due notice that you intend to take me to court", but, equally, we cannot, in the case of unfurnished dwellings, say that the rent should not be regulated in the normal way by access to rent tribunals.

I have every sympathy with diplomats or civil servants who go abroad and let their houses, but it is possible to conceive of a person being of a grasping nature and wanting to charge the tenant an extra high rent. I think that the tenant should have the right of rent regulation, and that is what we are giving him. He has the basic security of tenure, but really nothing else, whereas the Opposition would like him to have virtually no rights whatever. The Opposition take the view that if he is a tenant of this kind, and he is breaking his contract, he should not have any rights. That is the position as I see it in arguing the case for the new Clause. I have no doubt that the Opposition would like it to go further, and that that is the case that will be argued in this part of the debate.

I turn now to new Clause No. 2 and new Clause No. 11. To save time, I am discussing new Clause No. 2, but I must point out that the credit goes to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary who united with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) in defence of the manse. They both have a greater understanding of laws divine than I have, but as I understand it, the position is that whereas because of their special and privileged position—and I shall not discuss that this afternoon—clerics of the Church of England are protected in that under the existing law they can let their parsonages and get them back, this right does not exist for anyone outside the Church of England.

It was, therefore, reasonably asked whether we could give to all genuine divine spirituals the same right in regard to their manses or places of residence as was given to Church of England parsons, and the purpose of new Clause No. 2 is to give the same right to those who, broadly speaking, can be classed as the equivalent in other Churches of clerics of the Church of England. I am sure that there are a number of interesting questions that might be asked about travelling missionaries in Scotland, which I am not capable of answering. Broadly speaking, the new Clause carries out the pledge that we made to the hon. Member for Orpington, and I thank him for raising this matter. I hope that the Clause will be acceptable to the House.

I do not think that there is anything more to be said about this new Clause.

The same procedures must be gone through in the case of manses as in the case of a tenant who wants to return to his house or to let his children return there. The tenant must be given notice in advance. He must be given notice if the intention is to take him to court. All those things apply in both instances, and, therefore, we find that the Opposition's Amendment deals with the same point, and, again, one wants to take this out of regulation and not make it necessary to apply to the court or to get a court order.

Lastly, I come to the problem that was raised by the hon. Member for Dorset, South, about retired people. This is in reference to new Clause No. 11. I have a great deal of sympathy with the aims of this Clause, and if I could find a formula for dealing with this problem I would be almost as tempted to deal with it as I would be to deal with the problem of the agricultural cottage and say that the farmer should be allowed the right to get entry to his house if he is letting it rather than leaving it empty between agricultural tenancies. We tried to draft a Clause to cover the point raised by the hon. Member for Dorset, South, but we failed to do so.

The more we studied the new Clause, the more difficult we found the problem. I accept the hon. Gentleman's view that it would be nice to deal with the matter as he has done in the new Clause, but I think that his proposal is impossible to defend. It is very easy to say that one is buying a house for the purpose of retirement, but somebody might do that time and again and behave rather like those famous lawyers who retire from the law at regular intervals to get the tax advantages which thereby accrue to them.

This might happen only too easily in the case of those who suddenly decide that they will buy a house for the purpose of retirement, and then change their minds. Without going into detail, I am convinced that there are difficulties in the hon. Gentleman's proposition. One of his noble Friends in another place may be able to draft a Clause which makes sense, but we cannot recommend the House to accept new Clause No. 11, even though the intention behind the Clause is a useful one.

I must give this word of warning. We have extended our principle with regard to the unfurnished dwelling of the owner-occupier to the manse. I think that it would be very dangerous to extend it further, and my advice to the House is that, having made that extension beyond the owner-occupier and his relatives, we should leave it there, and not try to extend it either to agriculture or to retirement, because I believe that if we did that we would destroy the effectiveness of rent regulation in this group of dwellings.

Mr. Graham Page: I think that it might be convenient if, at this stage, I mention the meaning of the Amendments, as we are discussing them with the new Clauses, and deal also with the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I know that my hon. Friends will have more to say both on the new Clauses and on the Amendments.
The right hon. Gentleman has introduced the new Clause and rather patted himself on the back for doing so. The Clause is, of course, the result of an Amendment which was eloquently and persuasively moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), and a similar Amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King).

Mr. Crossman: If there was any lack of generosity, may I remedy it? I did not want to take the credit for the new Clause. This is something which the Committee pressed on us, and we were convinced of its value. We learned from the Committee, and I am glad to say so.

Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity. This matter was pressed from time to time in Committee. It was raised at our sixth sitting, and at the twentieth sitting the right hon. Gentleman produced the draft of the Clause which now appears on the Notice Paper. The new Clause is particularly valuable for protecting the owner-occupier who, by reason of his employment, or, if he is a Service man, by reason of his Service posting, moves from his house.
If one or two matters which have been omitted had been included in the Clause,

it would have been a very much better one. Perhaps I can point those out in that describing what I understand the new Clause will do. One has to have an owner who has resided in the house for some time before he lets it, or has let it before the Bill has become an Act. He will be protected only if the letting is unfurnished.
4.30 p.m.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has drawn the Clause in that way. In many cases it is the furnished letting to which we would wish to give protection. The right hon. Gentleman said that the landlord of a furnished letting has his protection under the other Act, but then he is subject to the tenant's going to the rent tribunal and obtaining an extension of his tenancy of up to 12 months. This is just the sort of thing that we wish to avoid in the case of the owner-occupier who has had his house as his residence and has then let it for a period while he has had to move away.
It is then provided that he must have informed the tenant in writing that he will want the house back—which is a very proper provision—and eventually he has to prove that he genuinely wants it back for himself and his family, who have resided with him for the period before the letting. That is rather unnecessarily restrictive. It may be that members of his family had left the house and had married and that, under different circumstances, he now wishes to find a residence for them. I would have thought that that phrase was a little too restrictive.
Then, when at the end of his letting the owner-occupier is entitled to regain possession and finds the tenant still there, his only course is to take out a possession summons and apply to the court for an order for possession. It is true that he will not have to prove that he has offered suitable alternative accommodation, or that it will be a great hardship if he is kept out—as he otherwise would have to prove under existing rent control legislation—but he will have to apply to the court for an order for possession, and I think I am right in saying that the court will still have the inherent power to postpone the order for possession.
It is true that the new Clause refers to Section 5(2) of the 1920 Act, which gave the county court power to suspend a


possession order, or to adjourn the hearing and, in general, to delay giving its final decision that the tenant should give up possession. If that Section is not to apply in future it seems to me that the court will still be left with the inherent jurisdiction of delaying the granting of a possession order for six weeks or so.

Mr. Crossman: I made that clear. I specifically said so.

Mr. Graham Page: That still leaves the landlord with a possible delay of several weeks before his case is heard. In Committee, we discussed the question of the speed with which a case could be brought up to the county court, and it is clear it could be four or even six weeks before the landlord could issue a warrant and obtain possession.
It is to that point that the Amendments in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself are directed. We feel that the Clause does not give all the protection it could give to the owner-occupier who wishes to return to his residence. He will still be obliged to go to the court to get his order for possession, and because he is obliged to do that there may be encouragement to bad tenants to remain as long as they can and to stall over the matter and drag it out until the very moment when the landlord is entitled to issue his warrant for possession.
That is the point to which the first Amendment is directed, and the second Amendment employs a device or legal fiction which, by putting this type of tenancy into the category of protected tenancies in Clause 28, would give the tenant who holds over after his tenancy has expired no basic protection under Clause 26.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he wished such a tenant to have basic protection, but until the procedure for obtaining an order for possession is very much better this may defeat the objects of the Clause. If we could be sure that this procedure of obtaining an order for possession was satisfactory, and that it really was possible to obtain it speedily, the Clause would be all right as it stands, but at the moment we are not satisfied that this procedure is speedy enough.
I now turn to the proposed new Clause No. 2, which is certainly supported by

hon. Members on this side of the House. This principle was well-argued in Committee, and I do not need to delay the House by referring to it again except in connection with the Amendments, which would have the same effect as the previous Amendments would have upon new Clause No. 1.
New Clause No. 11 would apply in the case of persons who purchased residences in anticipation of living there upon retirement. This is a form of thrift or saving which we should do everything to encourage. If it really is a genuine case of a man's buying his residence ahead of the time when he will retire and letting it until he is ready to take it over on retirement, we ought to give him the right to possession and not to protect the tenant, who, if the new Clause were accepted, would have full information as to the time of the owner's retirement and the time when he would require possession of the property.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he thoroughly agreed with the principle, but could not recommend the Clause. He will have noticed that in this case my hon. Friends and I have not incorporated the terms of the Amendments to new Clauses Nos. 1 and 2. In this case it would be necessary to insist upon the owner who found that he was prevented from obtaining possession of his dwelling going to court and proving there that he genuinely purchased the house for use on his retirement. Under those circumstances I should have thought that we could leave the matter to the good sense of the county court judge.
We have used the phrase,
acquired a dwelling house for his residence in anticipation of his retirement
and the last subsection describes what is meant by "retirement". I am sure that we could rely upon a county court judge to see whether the case was a genuine one. In my opinion, a genuine case is exactly the sort of case which we should remove from the restrictive provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: If the Minister is not willing to accept the new Clause as it stands, will it not be possible to provide that it should apply to those people who, by the nature of their occupation, cannot live in a house of their own while they are still working? In


Committee, we discussed the position of people such as policemen and nurses, who, as part of their terms of employment, have to live in premises which are provided for them. Would it not be reasonable to allow the new Clause to apply to them, if not to everybody?

Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged to the hon. Member for suggesting that qualification to the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has not explained why he cannot recommend the wording of the Clause; he has merely said that he could not recommend it. The Clause explains exactly what is intended. As I have tried to show, it is a Clause which can be applied by the courts in a common sense way.
I was saying that the exemptions contained in all three new Clauses came about because the right hon. Gentleman has insisted on pitching the rateable value so high in the first Clause and sweeping so many dwellings within the regulation system and has so insisted on the regulation system applying throughout the country that it is necessary to make exemptions to prevent hardship. We are pleased that he has accepted two of the necessary exemptions. I hope that he will just stretch his generosity a little further and say that our wording in new Clause No. 11 is reasonable and adequate and that he can accept the Clause because he accepts its principle.

Mr. Norman Cole: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in thanking the Minister for his introduction of new Clause No. 2, which is the honouring of an undertaking which we all appreciate. I have a few criticisms of new Clause No. 1 and the Minister's objections to new Clause No. 11. He may have expected that some of us would have objections to his remarks in that regard. I notice that subsection (1) of new Clause No. 1 would not apply and would, therefore, cause hardship in the case of a man who lived in a house as a tenant if afterwards, when it became vacant, he bought it—he was not living there any more—and let it for the time being. He would not get the benefit of new Clause No. 1. Although it does not define it, it says, in brackets:

(in this section referred to as the owner-occupier)",
whereas before that, the words are.
a person who has occupied a dwelling house.
I am not a lawyer, but I try to think these things out. Does it mean what I have said, or did it slip through? What is the intention? The Minister omitted to refer to anybody who lived in a house and afterwards wanted to regain possession of the premises under the terms of new Clause 1.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I have been reading this with some puzzlement. I wondered why a tenant was called an owner-occupier, particularly when he was not in occupation, but had been in occupation. Then I turned to the new Clause and found that someone who has acquired a residential interest in property, which may mean something very far short of purchase in leaseholds and subleaseholds—it could mean some form of tenant—is called an owner. We might be getting into some confusion about the exact meaning of the proposals.

Mr. Cole: I am grateful to the hon. Member. He has elaborated my point. I think that the point is now clear to the Minister and perhaps I can move on.
I turn to what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby mentioned, the restrictions of subsection (1) about the future occupation of the house. Here again, I hope unwittingly, hardship may be caused. What would happen if a man leaves a house under a regulated tenancy for 20 years, during which time he was blessed with a son or daughter, who afterwards wished to take over? Of course, that son or daughter had not—except embryonically—lived in the house before. As I read paragraph (b) of subsection (1), it would eliminate such a child from a proper right to re-possess the house on behalf of his father, possibly deceased. This would also apply to a child who had, in the meantime, been adopted and reached mature years. We all know that the hard cases are the ones which cause the trouble afterwards, and not those which fit tidily into a new Clause.
4.45 p.m.
I cannot understand why paragraph (b) of subsection (2) is there at all. If the intention is to underline paragraph (a) of that subsection, I do not understand why


it is necessary to repeat it. On the other hand, the intention may be that if someone inadvertently, after the commencement of the Bill as an Act, let the house under these conditions but did not comply with the conditions of paragraph (a) though everything went quite amicably—the tenant lived there for five years and, like a gentleman, moved out when the time was up—his failure to comply with (a) would inhibit the owner from subsequent benefit, because, technically, he had not complied in the earlier instance with (b).
In other words, a past technical misdeed about which there was no argument, and during which tenant and owner went on quite happily together, would stop him having the benefit of this new Clause altogether. This is the way I read it and this is the way in which it may happen in future. I hope that the Minister will address his mind to this.
I will now deal with new Clause No. 11. With great respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby did not mention something which, to be fair, the Minister said as a reason why he did not like this Clause. He said that he did not like it because he was frightened that some people might retire frequently and, therefore, get the benefit of the Clause in obtaining possession. I see his point, but is this very likely? Does he envisage someone going to all the trouble to getting the house and putting a tenant in and then, by a sort of arriére pensée, deciding that he wants possession and applying to the court on five or six different occasions and five or six different county courts—so that he will not be identified, one with the other—and eventually getting possession of each house under this Clause? This is cloud-cuckoo-land. This will not happen. I think that we can rely, in the cases where this might happen, on the good sense of the courts.
There have been cases of people who wanted to regain possession of premises which were in a poor condition, during the war, for example, and the courts showed themselves fully qualified to exercise discretion in these matters they will still show themselves so qualified.

Mr. Archie Manuel: In connection with this type of case, surely the difficulty is with the word "retirement".

While there could be genuine retirements, there are many cases of retired people starting work again. Many jobs are available to them. Would the hon. Member consider this a "breaking of the pledge" of retirement to get possession?

Mr. Cole: The answer to that is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said, that there is a reference in the Clause to the National Insurance Act. A man under 25 who applied for possession of his house on these Grounds would find it very difficult to prove that he intended to retire. If a man genuinely emerged from retirement, I would be on his side. We are all entitled to do that at some time. If, however, he were engaged in some skulduggery, I should not be on his side. These cases are so rare as not to militate against good law. New Clause No. 11, in its intention, is good law.
Something will have to be done on the lines of New Clause No. 11, whether in these words or in another place. New Clause No. 11 fills the gaps which are left by new Clause No. 1, not to mention other parts of the Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will apply his not inconsiderable ingenuity again to finding some way round this. I ask him to turn his mind for one moment to the case of someone doing this three or four years beforehand, who had the strongest possible protestations from the tenant that he would leave that house and that it would be available to the owner when the time came.
There ought to be some fairness between the respective hardships of a man aged 65 or 70 and a tenant, who, at least, is living in the house, though he has his difficulties, too. There ought to be an arbiter, a court, to decide on the respective degrees of hardship between the two. That is what new Clause No. 11 would do, taking into account the rights of the owner of the premises, as owner, to regain possession of his own property.

Mr. John Harvey: I hope that, in connection with the intervention of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), my hon. Friend will agree that one must have in mind the case of a person who is perhaps working today in London and who wants to provide a house by the sea for


his retirement. Such a person might not envisage occupying those premises for perhaps 20 years, but wants, while he can afford the mortgage, to provide for his retirement at present. It is important that we should be clear of the relevance of this provision to such a case, particularly if the man I have described decides to do some work when he is eventually in semi-retirement in his home by the sea.

Mr. Cole: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention and, of course, I had in mind retirement from the ordinary career which one followed in earlier life. I would not attempt to define "retirement". I understand that we have gone as far as possible in defining it in the National Insurance Acts. As my hon. Friend said, a younger man might wish, while he can afford the mortgage or while the rent of the property will pay the mortgage, to provide for his retirement a house at the seaside.
I hope that I have commented on the new Clauses sufficiently to enable the Minister to make an analysis of them, particularly of new Clause No. 11. I fear that there is a gap in the Bill as drafted which that new Clause, or the principle underlying it, would help to fill.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I do not wish to delay the House on this matter. I have only two points to raise. The first concerns the phrase "owner-occupier". What will be the position of a man who is the tenant of the premises—who has perhaps bought the lease of the premises—in which he lives and who then sub-lets those premises? Could he be described as an owner-occupier? New Clause No. 1 begins with the words:
Where a person who has occupied a dwelling-house"—
That would seem to be a tenant;—and it goes on:
as his residence (in this section referred to as the owner-occupier) …".
That seems to exclude a tenant.
Perhaps this difficulty will be overcome later in the Bill, in the definition Clause, when we come to define "owner-occupier". We do not appear to have a

definition of that phrase and we do not know whether it would include a tenant-occupier.
My second point concerns a constituent of mine who, a year ago, purchased a house in Northampton because in his job, he would be transferred to that part of the country in a year's time. He let the house for the interval of a year on a fixed basis and explained to the tenant that it was just a question of preventing the house from being empty for that year. Can anything be done in the Bill to assist that sort of case?

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I did not have the pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee, but those who did have greatly improved the Bill as a result of their deliberations. I hope that that spirit of improvement will continue. I also noted with pleasure the spirit of sweet reasonableness with which the Minister began our proceedings this afternoon. In that spirit, I wish to make a suggestion which, I hope, will commend itself to both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends.
It is clear that the Minister has indicated a desire in new Clause No. 1 to deal with the case of a person who has occupied a dwelling-house and who reasonably requires the premises for his personal occupation in future. I do not wish to become controversial on this matter, but I suppose that the greatest general criticism of the Bill is that a large number of people may be discouraged from letting unfurnished premises. I am sure that the intention and desire of the Minister is that, so far as possible, no discouragement should be given to people to let premises unfurnished more than is commensurate with the principles underlying the Bill. That being so, how can that desire be achieved?
New Clause No. 1 is concerned with the person who is the owner, who has occupied the residence and who wants to get possession of it once more. But what about the other half of what is a logical argument? The Government have not dealt with the case of the person who is not at present the owner, who is to become the owner and who equally wants to be able to occupy the premises in future. With their ingenuity, my hon.


Friends, within a very short time, tabled new Clause No. 11, to which I did not feel able to add my name because of the word "retirement". I suppose that no hon. Member has more retired people in his or her constituency than I have. I have the greatest possible desire, therefore, to do everything I can for those who are living on small fixed incomes and for those who come to retire and spend the balance of their days in the heavenly climate of Thanet. Therefore, I strongly favour the principles of new Clause No. 11.
As a lawyer, I could not accept the word "retirement" as being sufficiently definable for the purposes of this matter. On the other hand, I observed that the Minister indicated a desire to try to meet the case adduced by my hon. Friends in the nature of the new Clause they have suggested. I suggest that new Clause No. 1 could easily cover both essentials—not only those who have occupied the residence but also those who desire to do so in future; that is, if new Clause No. 11 were to read:
Where a person who has acquired a dwelling-house for his residence in anticipation of his future personal occupation … and has thereafter let the dwelling-house on a regulated tenancy …
It would then go on to mention the conditions having to be satisfied.
If one is the owner of premises and one is proposing to let them, knowing that one will require to take over the premises at a later date, one is in no different a position from the purchaser of premises now who desires—the premises being free and vacant and not subject to a regulated or statutorily controlled tenancy—to let them. Is it not identical in principle to letting one's premises to somebody but expecting to resume personal occupation at a later date?
As I say, the matter could be settled by amendment of new Clause No. 1 or amendment of new Clause No. 11. It could be done by amending new Clause No. 1, which would be the simplest way of doing it, so that it would read:
Where a person who has occupied a dwelling-house as his residence … or who has acquired a dwelling-house for his residence in anticipation of his future personal occupation, has thereafter let the dwelling-house on a regulated tenancy …

5.0 p.m.
I apologise for not having conceived this earlier, for not having put it down in the form of an Amendment and for not having found time to go to my hon. Friends and put this suggestion to them. But I seriously commend it to the House as a constructive suggestion. We all think in terms of retirement. However, it may be that someone will not retire, but may be taken very ill. In my constituency, I have quite a number of people who do not really retire, but who, by virtue of serious illness or some other cause, find themselves having to acquire a house. What I want to ensure is that in the future any hon. Gentleman in this House who should be in a position to purchase a house will be quite free to let it to someone in the knowledge that, provided he and his family wish to occupy that house themselves in the future, they will be able to do so, and only in those circumstances.
Why should we not make sure not only in respect of those who are the fortunate owners of property, but also others? In the Manchester and Birmingham area there are a large number of people who make up their minds that later, perhaps when they are older though not necessarily when they retire, they would like to buy a house in, for example, Broad-stairs. They have no intention when putting up the money for a mortgage to occupy it. We would like to have those houses available for letting, but how can we expect the citizens of Birmingham and Manchester to purchase houses in Broad-stairs which they may want to occupy eight or 10 years' hence and on which they are willing to make a reasonable income meanwhile, unless they know they will be able to occupy them in the future? If they do know that, they will go ahead now and create a new body of unfurnished lettings.
These are not the professional letters; these are not cases of blocks of flats or houses of that kind. The intention is to encourage the bringing forward of a new class of landlord. It is what I call the personal landlord, who intends in the future personally to occupy his property but who would like to buy it now and put it on the market to be let, feeling quite sure in his own mind that he and his family will in the future, having given


due notice under the Bill, be able to occupy it.
I think that I am right in saying that the argument I have adduced is strictly in line with the principle the Minister has put forward and, I hope, in accordance with the sympathy of my hon. Friends.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am very much in sympathy with what my hon. Friend has put forward, but does he say that that would be a once-for-all right, or has he in mind that one should be able to go on doing this again and again? I would certainly have a great deal more sympathy if there were written into the Clause a provision to make sure that no one can make use of this right more than once.

Mr. Rees-Davies: It might be possible to take it further and pass it on to one's heirs and assigns and deal with it in that way. Therefore, the language which has been advocated by the Minister in his new Clause No. 1, and adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in his new Clause No. 11, does, in fact, deal with the person himself who has been the occupier. Had my right hon. Friend meant to include heirs and assigns and members of the family he would not have shrunk from so doing.
Taking the person in Manchester or Birmingham who is buying a property now with the intention of occupying it in five or ten years, it would be very difficult to argue that if he then dies and the property passes to his widow and then perhaps on to someone else, we can trace this right down. I do not say that it is beyond the wit of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to work it out, but I would be content if we could take those words and give them the meaning they are intended to have, that not only present owners but future owners should have the right to recover their properties. For that reason, I would be prepared to limit it in the way that the hon. Gentleman has indicated.

Sir Barnett Janner: To answer a point that has been raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) with regard to an application to a court, the hon. Member apparently wants the possibility of occupation to be taken over by bailiffs, or

someone of that sort, without any recourse to the court at all. I think that he is wrong.
In view of the circumstances outlined in the Clause, a person would apply to the court only where he really was suffering a very extreme hardship, because the court would not be in a position to grant relief except in such circumstances. If it were done in a frivolous way, or in the knowledge that some kind of relief was not likely to be granted—and such relief as it would be in the power of a county court judge to grant would be very little in those circumstances—a person would be placing himself in a position where, if at a later stage, he wanted a tenancy of some other premises, this could militate against him as a tenant.
For the sake of a few weeks' respite, I do not think that anyone would be foolish enough to risk taking an action to court. I think that that can be eliminated from anyone's mind in relation to the Clause as it stands at present not being an appropriate one.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that. It is perfectly obvious that the court could grant relief for only a matter of weeks, and, consequently, it would not pay a tenant to risk going to court unless he had a strong reason for doing so, because of any subsequent reaction there might be on him when it came to getting references in respect of a new tenancy.

Mr. Graham Page: Certainly, in the case of a county court it would take two months to reach the judge at all. The judge would then have the power to suspend the possession order for something like four to six weeks, and, therefore, a tenant could hold out for as long as three months. I take it that the hon. Member is not suggesting that a tenant or a landlrd has to prove hardship under the Clause, because that is not so.

Sir B. Janner: That is precisely what I was saying, but I disagree with the hon. Member that it would take anything like two or three months. He and I have had a fair amount of experience and practice in these matters. I think that it would be brought before the court very much more rapidly than that.
I wanted to deal with the question of retirement. As the House knows very


well, I have always thought it important that tenants should be protected. I am not at all happy about the words "in anticipation of retirement" because, frankly, I do not know what is meant by the phrase. Does it mean immediate retirement, or, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) was saying, does it mean that a person could buy a property at any time in the expectation of retirement? I do not understand how you can possibly grant protection to any tenant. If a person is to be entitled to purchase a house saying, "I propose to occupy this house on my retirement", he buys it in anticipation of retirement.
We can all anticipate retirement at some time or another. Anybody who buys a house can claim that he is doing so in anticipation of retirement. The suggestion, apparently, is that not only the person who buys the house, but also his heirs and successors, should be able to recover possession of it. That would destroy the intention of the Bill, which is to protect tenants.

Mr. Hale: I always listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) with attention, because of his great experience. I am at the disadvantage that I have been out of practice for a long time. But I do not understand why we refer to the landlord as a different person from the owner-occupier unless that is the intention. I suggest that the words "has occupied" are important in this connection and that a person qualifies under New Clause No. 1 only if he has actually entered into possession of the premises. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the words should mean bona fide occupation. That is a limitation on the provision which is important.

Sir B. Janner: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is correct in his assumption. The proposed new Clause No. 11 refers to a person acquiring a residence in anticipation of retirement.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: If the hon. Member looks at Clause No. 11 (1,b) he will find that it is necessary to show at the time that application for possession is made that the man has, in fact, retired.

Sir B. Janner: If I purchase a house today in anticipation of retirement, it may be 10 or 15 years before I retire. Indeed, I shall be happy to carry on for another

20 or 30 years. Let us assume that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) purchases a house in anticipation of retirement. When he retires he has an advantage over the person who did not say that his purchase was in anticipation of retirement. As a consequence, the protection of the tenant, no matter what may be the measure of hardship, is diminished on the retirement of an individual who purchased a house 20 years earlier. The tenant loses possession irrespective of the comparative hardship.
In my opinion, the measure of hardship should be one of the elements taken into consideration. If a person purchases a house with the object of retirement and considers letting it for six months, for example, that is a different matter, but it is not the point made by the Clause.

Mr. Rees-Davies: That is not the point. If he buys a house, will he let it? Surely he will not let it at all unless he can be sure of getting it back into his occupation on his retirement. This is the point to which the hon. Gentleman should address his mind. If he knows that he can get it back, he may let the house. The fact that one requires it for one's future personal occupation should be the ground on which it can be done.

Sir B. Janner: We are coming to what has been at the back of the Rent Acts from 1915 onwards. The Rent Acts existed to protect the tenant against being put out of the house unreasonably. They gave him a certain amount of protection during his occupation so that the landlord could not turn him out unless the hardship of the landlord was greater than that of the tenant. This new Clause operates contrary to the protective measures which have existed up till now. I hope that the House will not accept it.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Before I call the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) I must remind him that his own Amendment is out of order.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I intended, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to speak not to my Amendment, but to new Clause No. 11. I am not sure that the intervention by the hon. Member for Leicester,


North-West (Sir B. Janner) has either clarified the issue or sweetened the atmosphere.
May I get back to the Clause on which the discussion began? I have a deal of great sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) in that new Clause No. 11, although my name is put to it, does not meet the requirements of many of us on this side of the House, I am, therefore, not absolutely heartbroken that the Minister has declined to accept the Clause in the form in which it is drafted, particularly as I thought that I detected an assurance that he may later be prepared to give further consideration to the issues involved.
I am bothered by confining the effect of the Clause to retirement or anticipation of retirement, regardless of the definition of retirement. There are large categories of people, whom hon. Members on both sides of the House want to help, who would not benefit from any Clause requiring a definition of retirement. For example, there are people who live in tied houses and who buy another house for future occupation which they may want to occupy before they retire. A local government officer may buy a house at the seaside and towards the end of his career he may manage to have himself posted to a place near the house which he has bought. He will want to live in the house well before his retirement.

Sir B. Janner: Does not the hon. Member realise that such a situation is protected under the Rent Acts at present? There is a provision which enables a case of that sort to be dealt with by a court on the question of hardship. The question is, who has the greater hardship—the landlord or the tenant?

Sir A. Meyer: If the hon. Member will allow me, I will come to the point about hardship later. I want to draw attention to one or two of the types of case involved here before turning to the kind of decision that the court is likely to come to.
One of the inducements to people in the Foreign Service or in the Armed Forces to serve their country abroad for long periods is that they are enabled to

save some money which can be used to purchase a home to which they can return. One may very well come back home before—even long before—the time of retirement.
I know of no more pathetic spectacle than that of ambassadors, who served their country abroad very nobly, coming back here at the age of 52 or 53 having failed to make any provision for accommodation. Others, more provident, have seen to it that they have somewhere to live when they come back. Those people will come back at the age of say, 52, with another eight or nine years to serve, probably all that time in London, and are faced with the problem of recovering possession of the house they had acquired over the years.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West spoke of the court granting possession in such cases. One can apply to the court for possession, but unless some such provisions as those contained in new Clause No. 11 are applied, the court, by the Bill, has no directions as to what criteria it should apply in deciding who should have possession. In the absence of anything set out in the Bill, the courts will use the criteria of greater hardship referred to by the hon. Member, but in a great many cases of the sort I am trying to describe, the court will decide that the greater hardship would be caused to the tenant than to the landlord, notwithstanding very solemn commitments entered into by the tenant to vacate the premises on a certain date or after a certain period of notice.
By the nature of things, people coming back from abroad in, say, their fifties are unlikely to have young children. The people to whom they have let their house are, again by the nature of things, somewhat more likely to have young children. We discussed in Committee the case of the family of six tuberculous children, but we could very well have a childless couple coming back from abroad faced with refusal to move by tenants with a young family. Any humane person would say that the far greater hardship would be caused to the tenants by the granting of possession than to the landlord by refusing it. Yet there was this solemn undertaking by the tenant to vacate the premises on a certain date. I therefore think that we must


give the court some kind of direction in such cases.
My Amendment has been ruled out of order, so I cannot refer to it, but I should like to refer to a suggestion made in Committee by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin). He suggested that there should be
… some kind of restrictive covenant which would cover the legitimate case of the owner who wanted to let his house for a certain limited period because he wanted it later for his own use. If it is possible to draw up such a covenant which would be accepted by the courts as not violating the basic rights in the Bill … such a device could be thought out"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 11th May, 1965; c. 278.]
The hon. Member suggested that something like that could be used as a kind of machinery for enabling that owner to recover possession.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary made some very sympathetic noises when the hon. Member for Paddington, North made that suggestion, but I cannot trace that any subsequent action followed—

Mr. Julius Silverman: Does not new Clause No. 1 do precisely that?

Sir A. Meyer: But new Clause No. 1 is deliberately restricted to people who have already occupied the house to which they wish to return. I am dealing with the case of people who have bought a house they have never occupied. They may have bought it while abroad and wish to return to it, but they are expressly excluded from the provisions of new Clause No. 1.
I therefore hope that the Minister will find some kind of machinery, either on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Paddington, North or—if I can mention it before I am ruled out of order—on the lines of my Amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, somehow or other, be able to give some reasonable chance to an owner to recover his own solitary domicile at the appointed time, combined with the prevention of abuses.
Frankly, I am not entirely convinced by all the stories we hear of attempts to drive a coach and horses through the Measure, and generations of Rachmans growing up with thousands of illegitimate offspring, each claiming a house for himself. That aspect has been grossly

exaggerated. Against that, we have to balance the discouragement we are offering to people who are some of the most useful members of our community.
I have a letter from a borough engineer in my constituency. He writes:
There are four or five N.A.L.G.O. members of my staff, including myself, who live in tied houses and who may wish to buy a house for retirement and let it until then so guarding against the continual rise in the cost of houses. The proposed Rent Act makes this too risky therefore they have to contemplate crippling mortgage repayments by buying at retirement instead of in advance.
It would be a great pity if, by failure just to bridge the gap, we were to discourage people who perform a very useful rôle in our society.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I hope that the Minister will find some way of giving effect to the sympathy he has already expressed for new Clause No. 11. One has been struck in this debate by the difficulties of his doing so, because it has become evident that if we open the door a very little way we are in danger of opening it very wide. Nevertheless, I am not without hope that some method will be found before the Bill finally passes into law.
What strikes me particularly about the situation is that under new Clause No. 11, all one has to do is to occupy the dwelling house for, possibly, a quite short period of time if one is in the fortunate position of being able to do that and take advantage of new Clause No. 1, but if, for some reason one cannot do that, though one has precisely the same intention as the man who can do so, one is not covered by new Clause No. 1. Unless effect is given to something of the nature of new Clause No. 11 or the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), we shall be very much more in a hole. The result is likely to be that people who are contemplating retirement within a comparatively short period of time will probably buy their houses as a guard against inflation and, having done so, will leave them empty. In the long run, that will not benefit the housing situation.
As I say, I fully appreciate the difficulties—and I appreciate them a great deal more fully than I did when I first looked at new Clause No. 11. There are considerable difficulties, but I hope that the


Minister will give a great deal of thought to this problem, and come up with some solution in another place.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: I am perfectly satisfied that new Clause No. 1 meets the case put in Committee, and I appeal to those who spread alarm and despondency about the effects of the Bill to go back to their constituencies and make it quite clear that if people let their houses after being in occupation, the new Clause will make it comparatively easy for them to recover possession. We have a responsibility to say this publicly, outside this Chamber, so as to relieve the fears of those who may otherwise be prevented from letting their houses when going on short or medium tours of duty abroad.
While on this Clause I make one comment about the second Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). It seems that it would achieve the opposite effect from that which I assume he intends. It says:
the letting shall not create a regulated tenancy but shall create a tenancy which shall be a protected tenancy within the meaning of Section 28 of this Act".
In Section 28 "protected tenancy" means a tenancy to which the Rent Acts apply. Not being a lawyer, I should have thought that meant that the Amendment would apply the protection of the Rent Act, 1933, to those covered by this new Clause, which I am sure is not what the right hon. Gentleman intended.
New Clause No. 2 follows the principle of an Amendment I moved in Committee. I express thanks to the Minister for considering that point. I also express the thanks of the Churches Main Committee whose members were very much concerned about this subject. They, I believe, are satisfied with the wording of the new Clause. But there is still—I am expressing my own view—an important difference of principle between the treatment of the Church of England and the treatment of the Free Churches. Section 59 of the Pluralities Act, 1838, is still in operation and therefore it is not necessary to go to the courts to recover

possession of a parsonage house, whereas it is necessary to go to the courts to recover possession of a manse. Ultimately, we shall have to see if this difference of treatment can be ironed out, even though we are quite happy with the terms of the new Clause as it stands and though it meets the anxieties expressed by the Free Churches when they saw the Bill in draft form.
New Clause No. 11 has been the main subject of our discussion. There are a number of difficulties here. There is the point as to whether the acquisition of the house is genuinely for retirement or not. Again, not being a lawyer I cannot see the difficulties which have been expressed. I should have thought that the definition of "retirement" contained in New Clause No. 11(3) was perfectly adequate. I can understand it a great deal better than I understand some of the Clauses already in the Bill. I should have thought that definition perfectly satisfactory.
The next question is whether it would be possible to abuse the new Clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) about Rachmans with 15 illegitimate children having 15 properties which they purport to require for retirement. I had not heard that objection voiced until he made it, but it makes the suggestion sound completely ludicrous when one considers it in that light. Perhaps we could get the Minister to accept the Clause with some additions made to it. I remember that when the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) put forward an Amendment something like this in Committee she said that it should be a condition that the landlord should own only one property. That criterion is not repeated in the new Clause. It would stop the professional landlord from using it as a part of his enterprise.

Mr. Manuel: Surely on reconsideration the hon. Member would agree that the main difficulty is the word "retirement" and its definition. Although he may be satisfied with the subsection (3), I certainly am not. Many of my constituents retire and get other employment in which they work until they are 70, when they get a pension. That would not cover my idea of retirement.

Mr. Lubbock: The new Clause allows the courts to interpret this. The courts have to be satisfied, in subsection (1,b):
that the dwelling-house is required as a residence for the owner and that the owner has retired,
I should have thought that we could leave this to the courts and that it would not be a matter of great difficulty.
Perhaps we could restrict the application of the Clause to certain categories of people who, by the nature of their occupation, are unable to live in a house of their own while they are in full-time employment. I need not run through all the categories of the people we are concerned about. An hon. Member has spoken about local government employees. There are also firemen who occupy tied houses as part of their conditions of service. There are also policemen. There are nurses, sisters, matrons, and other categories of people who work in hospitals under the National Health Service. I need not enumerate them all. One could design a qualifying subsection to new Clause No. 11 which said that if a person is occupying a house under the terms of his employment and acquires another house in contemplation of retirement that would qualify him for the benefit of the Clause, but would not qualify the ordinary citizen who is perfectly capable of living in a house which he owns while he is in his employment. He does not need to let a house because he is prevented from living in it himself.
Perhaps a maximum term could be placed on the time which could elapse between a person acquiring such a property and taking up possession. I believe the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) mentioned 20 years. It would be quite unreasonable to let a house to a person for 20 years and then expect to recover possession virtually without going through any formalities. I should not go so far as that. Perhaps this is the big distinction between new Clause No. 11 and new Clause No. 1. In new Clause No. 1 we are considering the person who serves two or three years at most. In Committee we did not speak about people who were serving for 10 years.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Surely if the incoming tenant knew that it would be 20 years before

the house was wanted that would not be unreasonable? A 20-year lease is not unknown and there is nothing immoral about it.

Mr. Lubbock: I ask the hon. Member to put himself in the position of a tenant who is in possession for 20 years. Would he not be vastly more resentful at having provisions of this kind applied to him than he would be if he had been in possession for only six months or a year? This is a subjective matter. I should feel that way about it myself.
There is a second argument for having a term put on these arrangements. No one will acquire a house 20 years before his contemplated date of retirement and leave it empty for all that time. One of the matters with which we are concerned is the possibility that a person might leave a property empty because of his fear that he could not recover possession at the end of a fixed term of lease. No one in his right senses, aged 45, would acquire a house in contemplation of retirement 20 years later and leave it empty all that time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] He would be locking up a fairly large sum of money. Also, if a property is left empty for a long time the windows are broken, there are drawings all over the walls, and other types of damage are done to the property.

Mr. John Tilney: Will the hon. Member bear in mind that most of those who serve overseas in Her Majesty's Civil Service retire at 50 or 55?

Mr. Lubbock: I am not talking about retirement date. I am visualising a person who, on retirement, would be enabled under new Clause No. 11 to recover possession of a house more easily than other types of landlords. A limit should be placed on the period which may elapse between his letting the house and his attempt to recover possession. This might be 20 years or 15 years. It is a matter for consideration. The Minister might like to consider this further restriction on the application of the Clause.
I agree with what the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) said about the illogicality of the distinction between new Clauses 1 and 11. It appears possible that a person can take


up residence in a house for six months and thereby have the benefit of new Clause No. 1. Except for those who happen to be serving abroad at the time they acquire the property, this is probably the means by which most people will get round this matter, if the Minister does not agree to accept new Clause No. 11. I hope that on reflection the Minister will agree that the Government should do something about this in another place and not leave it to the Opposition. The Minister has heard the feeling expressed by both sides of the House that something should be done to help people in this position. I hope that the Minister will take the responsibility of saying that he accepts the principle and that something will be done in another place.

Mr. Costain: Although I heard the whole of the debate on Second Reading, I had the opportunity of making only a three-minute speech. I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, but I used my weekends to some good effect by reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in Committee. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the way in which they flushed out from the Minister's mind some of his Socialist doctrinaire principles.
It was clear from the speech made by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) that he did not serve on the Standing Committee, nor has he suffered such a purging of the mind. He is still working on the same principles as he has clung to over the years. In my constituency there are a large number of retired people. Many of them have come from Leicester. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to appericate that when they come to Folkestone from Leicester they release houses in Leicester. It is a very good thing for Leicester that they should move to Folkestone on retirement. The purpose of new Clause No. 11 is to enable this process to take place more easily. The hon. Gentleman is so imbibed with the idea that, once a tenant is in a house, any measure taken to get him out of it is wrong that he cannot get his thoughts straight.

Sir B. Janner: What the hon. Gentleman wants is that every house should be decontrolled. That is the spirit in which he is talking. It is sheer nonsense.

Mr. Costain: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not tell me what I want. I would like there to be complete mobility of housing eventually. When there are enough houses to go round, the problem will be solved. My complaint against the Socialists is that they are going the wrong way about it. However, if I were to attempt to develop that argument you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would rule me out of order.
There is a great need for people to have the peace of mind of knowing that they have a house to which to retire. The advance of medical science has allowed people a longer life. Whereas people once had to train for trades, they are now training for retirement. Unilever has a whole department designed to help people to enjoy their retirement. Arrangements are made that during the last five years of their working life senior staff are granted progressively more time off. This is a very good scheme. It means that people do not have to work full-time up to the date of their retirement on a Friday and then be unwanted on the following Monday. Senior staff are allowed slowly to drift out and be replaced. People such as these need somewhere to go and spend the one day a week for the first year, the two days a week for the second year, and the three days a week for the third year. Unless some arrangement as is proposed in new Clause No. 11 is arrived at, this retirement scheme and other similar ones cannot properly work.
5.45 p.m.
I repeat that my constituency is doing Leicester a favour by providing houses for people to retire to, thus releasing houses in Leicester, where there is a shortage. It is right that it should be made possible for people to move into houses where there is not the same pressure. One of the problems in housing at present is to get them in the right position. This problem is to some extent overcome if people are enabled to retire to the right places.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to the Clause and bear in mind what I have said about people being partially retired. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay special attention to the valid point made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) about those in jobs which


necessitate them living in a house which goes with the job. I had uncles who were schoolmasters. I have seen how a headmaster is one day living in a furnished house which goes with the school and the next day has to find a house to retire to.
In the past people bought houses to which to retire over the rateable value laid down by the Rent Act. The Socialist Government are so determined to draw the net tight that they make it certain that nobody should have even the slight advantage of being able to buy a bigger house for that purpose. By solving the problem for the elderly and retired we would help to solve the problem facing those in overcrowded areas.
Although I welcome new Clause No. 1 as the first indication of the flushing out of the Minister's mind, I want to ask some questions. I am sure that subsection (1,b) is drawn with the greatest care by the Parliamentary draftsmen. It says:
the owner-occupier or any member of his family who resided with the owner-occupier when he last occupied the dwelling house as a residence".
What does that mean? Does it mean that such a person slept in the house the last night on which the owner-occupier slept in the house? Does it mean that such a person slept in the house the week before the owner-occupier moved out of the house? The Minister nods approval. Would he settle for a fortnight before the owner-occupier moved out? Many people transferring houses send a member or members of their family as an advance party to make preparations. The Clause needs a good deal of clarification. It is for the House rather than for the courts to clarify it.
I am worried about sub-letting. Owner-occupiers may let their properties while they go overseas, say, for anything from five to ten years. They may quite properly give their tenants the right to sub-let the house. The Clause does not deal with sub-letting. Would the fact that the first tenant sub-let to a second tenant, if he did not want to remain in the house, nullify the agreement arrived at by the owner-occupier originally?
I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Orpington has left his place. He seemed to be quite alarmed by the fact that a person who had lived in a house

for 20 years should then be required to move, but I remind the House that for the country as a whole the average time spent in one house by an occupier is seven years. Will the Minister indicate clearly when to qualify under the Clause a family must sleep in the house and when subletting nullifies the situation?
I mentioned earlier that I had uncles who were Methodist ministers and who lived in manses. I am delighted that persons of that kind are covered by new Clause No. 2, but I should like to have seen a better definition of ministers of religion. There is quite a revival of religion at present in different sects. There is no definition of ministers of religion in Clause 28. Can we take it from the Minister that if the Clause is passed he will introduce an Amendment to define precisely what is meant by a minister of religion?

Mr. Carlisle: Since we are taking these new Clauses together most of the debate has tended of necessity to turn on new Clause No. 11. Before addressing myself to that Clause, I should like to make one or two observations on new Clause No. 1 and the Amendment to it in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). Obviously, we welcome that new Clause as an attempt by the Minister to meet great criticisms levelled at that part of the Bill in Committee, but in one respect the Minister is being quite unreasonable in criticising the Amendment by saying that it will take houses out of the basic protection of Part III. Is the right hon. Gentleman right?
Merely to say that they shall not be regulated tenancies would not take them outside that basic protection in the Bill in requiring the matter to go to the court. Part III states in terms that.
it shall not be lawful for the owner to enforce against the occupier, otherwise than by proceedings in the court, his right to recover possession of the premises.
If, by taking these people out of the regulated tenancies, we are taking them out of the protection of the Rent Act, then under Clause 26(1) they still have basic protection from eviction without court proceedings.
If I am right, it seems to me that it is quite wrong for the Minister to base his objection to the Amendment on


the fact that it would not be necessary any longer to go to court to get an order for possession. If an owner-occupier lets a house in the situation which is envisaged in new Clause No. 1, is it unreasonable that he should arrange with the incoming tenant a rent which that person is willing to pay?
Why is it necessary for houses let in this situation to involve the need to bring in the rent officer and if necessary to go before the assessment committee? The purpose of my hon. Friend's Amendment is to enable the tenant and the landlord in the situation set out in the Clause to fix the rent by agreement without the requirement of going to the rent officer and having the rents registered. I should have thought that the Minister has put up no argument against accepting that Amendment.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am not quite clear what the hon. Member is proposing. Is the proposition that any house which is let after the owner has occupied it as his residence should be a house that should not be subject to regulation? The hon. Member will appreciate that the question of requiring it as a residence for the owner-occupier or a member of the family comes only at a later stage when the owner needs the house for his own occupation. What comes at the stage of regulation or no regulation is the sole test of whether it has been already occupied by the owner as his residence. Would not the hon. Member agree that that would take out of regulation a substantial majority of houses?

Mr. Carlisle: I agree that that is so. I appreciate the strength of the hon. Member's observation. Where a house has been let for a period of time and the previous owner-occupier wishes to repossess at a later stage it would not be unreasonable that in those circumstances rents should be fixed by agreement rather than by regulation under the Bill. I do not see that by removing the words "regulated tenancy" we would take the tenancy out of the basic protection which it would otherwise have when proceedings for possession were taken against the tenant.
On new Clause No. 11, I do not think that it is adequate for the Minister to say, "I sympathise with the proposal behind the new Clause, but I cannot find

suitable words to cover the situation". The Minister must appreciate, as the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) said, that one has this ridiculous distinction that if one occupies the house for residence for a few days one is covered by new Clause No. 1. If one has not occupied the house at all, but one has bought it for the purposes of occupying it at a later date, one is not covered and it will be still necessary to satisfy the court that the house is required and that the tenant would not be subject to greater hardship than the applicant if an order for possession were granted.
It has been said that one of the arguments for enabling a house required for retirement or for residence at a later stage to have this ground under new Clause No. 11 for repossession is that this would enable the owner to let the house rather than to leave it vacant. There is also a further advantage. I do not see why under a Measure the object of which is to prevent scarcity and tenants being evicted without good reason and excessive rents being charged one should so draft the wording that one covers every house let by an individual who owns merely the one house and has bought it for the purpose of living in it at a later stage.
Surely there is nothing unreasonable in letting people who have bought a house for residence later say to the tenant, "You have gone in with the full knowledge of the fact that the house will be wanted later and that your right to occupation depends on a contract entered into and that I have made it clear to you that at a later stage I shall be wanting this house because I have bought it to live in myself."
6.0 p.m.
I believe that when that time comes the owner has a perfect right to resume, or take up for the first time, occupation of that house as his residence without a tenant being able to turn round and say, "No I have rights under the Act and I will prove to the court that greater hardship does not apply in this case." I very much hope that the Minister will reconsider this and either accept new Clause No. 11 or give an undertaking to bring in a new Clause.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Nobody disputes that new Clauses Nos. 1 and 2 are a great improvement on the


Bill as it went into Committee. Perhaps I might express some regret that it was not possible for the Minister to reach the position he has taken up in new Clause No. 1 in time for us to have had that under consideration in Committee, because it is clearly something which needs time and thought. It would perhaps have been to the advantage of all concerned if we had had the 21st sitting of the Standing Committee and taken it then.
It seems that the Minister has landed us in some unnecessary confusion by extending new Clause No. 1 to cover not only periodic tenancies, but also fixed tenancies. Our reason for tabling our original Amendments to the Bill was to exclude fixed tenancies and it was the Minister who decided that, in his opinion, periodic tenancies should be included. If we had gone about this the other way, and the Clause had merely covered periodic tenancies, then I feel that the position would have been much more satisfactory, because I cannot see the justice or the need for bringing in legislation and involving the courts and the rent officers in a situation where the rights of the tenant under the contract into which he has entered are known to him as well as to his landlord, or for giving the tenant rights to which he is not really entitled, because he only retains possession by flagrantly disregarding a contract into which he entered freely.

Sir B. Janner: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the whole of the protective measures contained in all the Rent Acts from 1915 onwards, until the destructive Measure of 1957, were based upon the principle that the State would protect a person from being evicted? It is not a new principle at all. It has existed for 50 years.

Mr. Onslow: I would be out of order if I covered all the ground which the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) has invited me to cover. The point at issue deals with owner-occupiers of houses who are away from their residences because they are employed overseas or elsewhere in this country and who have entered into a contract freely to let their house for a fixed period and who wish to recover it when the fixed period is terminated. I cannot see any reason whatever for the injection of an extra element which will be, in some circumstances,

quite clearly to the disadvantage of the owner-occupier and to the benefit only of those tenants who insist upon arrogating to themselves rights which are not theirs.
I would like the Minister to give a particular assurance on another point. In his new Clause he has laid it down that notice has to be given not later than six months after the commencement of the Act in the case of tenancies already in existence. I would ask him for a categorical assurance that he will make quite certain that the Service Departments and the Departments concerned with the employment of civil servants overseas draw this condition to the attention of their staff who are about to be posted overseas, or are currently serving overseas. There would then be no possible misunderstanding and no case arising where civil servants overseas or soldiers overseas, not having access to the English papers, may not be able to read of this provision, perhaps because they are on the high seas or in the Borneo jungle. It is important that they should know and have time, either by themselves or through their agents, to see that this condition about service of notice can be fulfilled.
May I now turn to new Clause No. 11? If only the Minister had the additional stamina and resolution required to find a means of drafting an acceptable Clause embodying a principle which has already found favour on both sides of the House, it would be a most valuable addition to the Bill. It might well be an improvement upon new Clause No. 11 which, I supppose, is not presented to the House as being perfect in its present, form. This is a serious problem and it has been brought out well in debate that unless some provision is made to cover the sort of cases which have been most persuasively argued by Members from both sides the Bill will contain within it a flagrant injustice. The Minister may hold himself out as being a great resister of temptation, or he may want to maintain his reputation for having a jaundiced view of landlords. I do not think that this should be a reason to resist the temptation which new Clause No. 11 offers him to do something which needs doing.
There is an opportunity here to protect the position of people who need, and ought to be encouraged, to provide houses


for themselves against the time when they come to retire. Some of the objections which have been raised to new Clause No. 11 may be valid, but others, clearly, are not and I hope that before we leave this point, the Minister will give the House a firm assurance that his mind is not closed on this subject and that he is prepared to see that the point is reconsidered and to say that a much needed further improvement will be made in the Bill before it becomes law.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The House has given, on the whole, an approving response to new Clause No. 1. There are one or two matters arising from the Amendments which have been put down by the Opposition that I think I should deal with. It is the view of my right hon. Friends and those of us on this side of the House that the tenants who come into the category of the lettings that we are now dealing with should be entitled to basic protection and that the tenancies should become regulated tenancies.
I quite agree that an important aspect of this matter is that the procedure for recovery of possession should be quick and effective. We had a great deal of discussion in Committee about this and the evidence then available from the experience of the first quarter of the year was, I think, most reassuring. Out of a total of 7,151 cases entered during the first quarter of 1965, landlords asked for expedited hearings in only 90 cases and examples were given in Committee of the interval between the issue of the summons and the hearing in cases where expedition was sought and application was made, as is possible under the rules of court, to bridge the time limit for filing a defence and other means of that kind which can be used in the case of urgency.
The average interval between the issuing of the summons and the hearing of the application in, for instance, the west London court was 10 days; in Shoreditch, six days; and in Boston, in Lincolnshire, there were two cases involving 11 days.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: To avoid misunderstanding, may I point out that the Attorney-General is giving figures with which some of us are familiar and which

relate solely to the small number of cases in which an expedited hearing was sought and not the general run of cases. Perhaps he will make that clear.

The Attorney-General: I have made the point. What is being said is that hardship could be caused by the granting of basic protection. But where there is real hardship the person desiring to recover possession can use the expedition procedure. If he does so, he can get possession very quickly indeed. The case given by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) of an applicant having to wait 11 weeks or more before the case is heard is quite unrelated to the facts where there is an element of hardship and an element of urgency. When in due course the matter comes before the court the inherent discretion in the court to grant a pause for the tenant to make other arrangements will obviously be cut down, again strictly where the judge thinks that the hardship to the owner seeking possession is substantial.
Therefore, we are satisfied that the procedures which the Lord Chancellor has introduced for quickening the procedure of the court and reducing the delay justify us in saying that the recovery of possession can be done effectively and speedily.

Mr. Lubbock: The Attorney-General will remember that when he gave these figures in Committee some anxiety was expressed because most of them appeared to relate to London or the major conurbations and he had very few examples such as the one he has just given from Boston. Has he any further information about the time taken for these expedition hearings in rural areas?

The Attorney-General: I have no statistical information, but inquiries have been made and we are satisfied that in the rural areas arrangements can be made. For instance, under the Bill the registrar is entitled to hear claims for possession, and there can be transfers to courts in other districts. I am satisfied from the evidence that we have from the country districts as well that the recovery of possession can be done very quickly indeed. I have referred to two cases in Lincolnshire. This is the kind of performance which the court can accomplish if the person seeking possession gets


cracking and makes an application for expedition to the court.

Mr. Oscar Murton: Can the Attorney-General remember the cases which I quoted from the county court in Bournemouth—five over a period of some weeks—concerning Poole and Bournemouth in which the average delay was five weeks? Has he any information on that matter?

The Attorney-General: I have no knowledge whether in those cases any application was made for expedition. I do not know anything of the circumstances of them. I am giving the House the information which we have about cases in which expedition was sought; and where it is sought there is expedition. If anyone can give information to the contrary of anything other than a highly exceptional character, I shall be extremely surprised. I have been into this matter most carefully with the Lord Chancellor's Department, and I am satisfied that this procedure is effective.
6.15 p.m.
I was asked whether new Clause No. 1 covered a person who was merely a tenant in the first instance and then sublet. That person is covered by the Clause. "Owner-occupier" is used for the purposes of the Clause, and it covers the case of the tenant who sublets.

Mr. Cole: The Attorney-General will remember that I asked a question on this point. What is the position of a so-called owner-occupier who has never been resident in the house—not when he has partly let the house, but when he has let the whole house? Subsection (1,b) of the proposed new Clause refers to the time
when he last occupied the dwelling-house as a resident".

The Attorney-General: The owner-occupier must have occupied the dwelling house as his residence before he let the dwelling-house. That is the requirement of the Clause.

Mr. Crossman: Otherwise he is not an owner-occupier.

The Attorney-General: As my right hon. Friend says, otherwise he is not an owner-occupier.

Mr. James Allason: May I raise a point which is very relevant to those serving overseas whose wives are the owner-occupiers but where the house either belongs to, or the lease is granted to, the man overseas? I can understand that under the new Clause the wife would be residing there, but it is doubtful whether she comes under the second half of the new Clause and has power to let. It would be helpful if we could be told whether the new Clause covers the wife of a man serving overseas.

The Attorney-General: I will certainly look into that point. I should have thought that it clearly did. It covers a member of the family who resided with the owner-occupier when he last occupied the dwelling-house as a residence. "Resided" means resided. It therefore covers a bona fide resident and not merely an overnight taking up of temporary occupation before the benefits of the Clause come into operation. I do not think that any court would have difficulty about that.
We had an interesting suggestion from the hon. Member for Carlisle—I should say, Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). No doubt that is a mistake which will often be made in the House. He put forward the rather surprising proposition that the Opposition's Amendments would not exclude basic protection. I say "surprising" because at any rate part of the burden of the speeches of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in Committee was the express desire that basic protection should be excluded. The effect of the Opposition's Amendment to leave out lines 10 and 11 of the new Clause and to insert:
the letting shall not create a regulated tenancy but shall create a tenancy which shall be a protected tenancy within the meaning of section 28 of this Act".
would be to take the letting out of basic protection because it deems it to be a protected tenancy. As hon. Members will have noticed, protected tenancies are outside basic protection by reason of Clause 26(1) because they are protected under other legislation and therefore do not need basic protection under the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: May I tell the Attorney-General that the Amendment was intended to do that?

The Attorney-General: The Amendment having been drafted by the hon. Member, I am not surprised that it accomplished its intention.
I think that I have dealt with the matters of substance which arose on new Clause No. 1.

Mr. Costain: rose—

The Attorney-General: Perhaps I will come to a matter which will give some comfort even to the hon. Gentleman, who has been a little vehement in his criticisms of the Bill.
As my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of this debate, we on this side are in full sympathy with the principle which is emboded in new Clause 11. It is perhaps right, however, that I should emphasise at the outset that a man who buys a house for retirement and lets it on a regulated tenancy may apply to the court for a possession order by virtue of the provisions of paragraph (h) of Schedule 1 of the 1933 Act, with which, I know, the House is fully familiar. All that he has to establish is that it is reasonable to make the order and that greater hardship would be caused to him by refusal of the order than to the tenant in possession. Therefore, in the kind of case to which right hon. and hon. Members opposite have properly referred, which is deserving of sympathy, I should have thought that, broadly speaking, the provisions of the 1933 Act would be a satisfactory remedy.
However, the situation that is referred to of someone who makes specific arrangements for retirement, particularly the kind of case referred to by the hon. Member for Lubbock—I am sorry, for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—[Laughter.]; That is the second time. That this should happen so early in the history of the Report stage augers badly for the future when I am at this Box. The point that I was making with regard to those such as policemen who do not have homes of their own and who purchase a dwelling-house for the purposes in due course of living there on retirement is that that kind of situation is clearly one that my right hon. Friend is anxious to look at most sympathetically.
What troubles us about the new Clause as drafted is that it is far too nebulous and wide. It would provide abundant

opportunity for abuse and exploitation by those who purported to be acquiring dwellinghouses for the purpose of residence in anticipation of retirement but who acquired a number of residences—there is no limitation as to number in the Clause—exploited them commercially and then sought the protection of the Clause in due course. However, having used those words of criticism of the Clause, we are impressed with what has been said on both sides as regards this matter. Indeed, before anything was said in the House, my right hon. Friend and I and others gave anxious thought to it to see whether we could meet the reasonable wishes of the House in the matter.
I must confess that so far we have not been able to find a formula sufficiently watertight to prevent abuse and to establish certainty, but when the matter is looked at in another place, if it is found to be practicable to establish a watertight formula which will prevent abuse and will meet the point that is embodied in the new Clause, we will certainly be glad to consider it with the greatest possible sympathy.
I cannot say more than that at this stage, but I hope that I have said enough to indicate that we have open minds upon this matter and we hope that deliberations in another place will provide a solution which will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Costain: Will the Attorney-General be good enough to deal with the point which I made? The right hon. and learned Gentleman made his masterly statement that "residence" meant residence. I am certain that that means something to hon. and learned Members, but I am sorry to say that it does not mean much to me. I may have the mentality only of a tenant. My point concerns residence by a member of the family. It is likely that an advance party might go down to open up the new house. Are these members of the family prohibited under the Clause?

The Attorney-General: The test is that the owner-occupier must himself have had residence. New Clause No. 1 uses the wording:
Where a person who has occupied a dwelling-house as his residence … has let the dwelling-house on a regulated tenancy".


The person occupying the house must himself have resided in the premises. That is the absolute condition for the operation of the new Clause. The person must himself at some time have resided in the premises.

Mr. Evelyn King: I am sure that we are all grateful for what the Attorney-General has said, but I do not think that he has gone quite far enough. I should like him to answer two points. I am concerned principally with new Clause No. 11, which seeks to deal with persons who purchase a house in anticipation of retirement. I rather thought that the hon. Member for Leicester. North-West (Sir B. Janner) gave away the whole argument. He sought to argue that this new provision was no change because fox many years a landlord had not been able to get possession of a house in which there was a tenant.
The whole point is that that is not the case. It is true that under the law as it used to be a tenant who had a house valued at less than £30 in the country or £40 in London could be in that position and hardship could be caused, although I agree that it was on a minor scale. The new point here is that the Bill raises those limits to the point at which it now affects property with a rateable value of £400 in London and £200 in the country. In other words, we are bringing into the net, which used to affect only houses of poorer quality, almost every house in the country.

Sir B. Janner: The hon. Member is mistaken. At one time the rateable value limit was £100. That was many years ago. If the hon. Member compares today's rateable values with the rateable value of those days in respect of the same houses, he will find that there is not so much difference, if any.

Mr. King: I concede that at various times the value has changed. I quoted the most recent instances. The new factor in the Bill is that it will affect the vast majority of houses and it will affect, above all, the type of house which it is frequent for the owner to let for short periods or which is obtained in anticipation of retirement.
The Attorney-General—I will resist calling him the right hon. and learned Member for Jones—sought to argue, as has been argued before, that this was not a real problem because, under the 1933 Act, if a person who takes a house in anticipation of retirement can show that he has greater hardship than the tenant who is living in the house, the court would probably give him possession. That is true. The whole point, however, is that the owner would rarely be able to show that he had greater hardship. He would be on the point of retirement and almost certainly would have no children living with him, whereas the tenant to whom he has let the house, being younger, might be able to plead hardship, with the result that the owner would be unlikely to succeed. That is why I do not think that the reference to the 1933 Act which the Attorney-General has sought in aid is any reasonable protection for a person who has invested perhaps his life savings in a house to which he seeks to retire.
6.30 p.m.
I know that this is a real problem, and I do not think that it is a party issue. The right hon. Gentleman has shown his sympathy with it, and I should like to indicate the size of it. It stretches over every class. I cannot forget the number of persons who live in tied houses. I am thinking not of agricultural workers, but of policemen, prison officers, schoolmasters, and of farmers who, although they do not live in tied cottages, when they sell their farms must inevitably sell with them the houses they used to occupy. I am thinking of Army and Navy officers, civil servants and people living abroad. I am thinking of the people whose job brings with it a roof over their heads. So soon as they lose that job they lose that roof.
For many years prudent persons in that position have sought to make themselves safe by buying a house to which they intend to retire in due course. A prudent person in such a position seeks to secure safety not only for himself on retirement, but perhaps even more so for his wife, to whom he says, "Whatever may happen to me, you have no cause to fear because I have bought a house for you into which you can go". That is a natural, human, thing to do, and I cannot think that anyone would want to interfere with it.
This stretch of case which I have sought to describe is of all classes and of all income groups. There are 900,000 people who live in tied cottages. Add to that the ordinary person, working perhaps in London, who, through the years as he approaches retiring age considers buying a house so that when the time comes for him to retire or should anything happen to him, there is somewhere for his wife to live. We must make provision for that vast and important type of person.
The right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney-General said that they would like to accept our proposal, but that there were difficulties in the way of doing so. We would not insist on the words in the new Clause, and I find it hard to believe that it is not possible to put the Clause into such a shape that it can be accepted. The Minister referred particularly to barristers, and said that there might be bogus retirements, which I find hard to believe, in order to take advantage of the new Clause. I do not know whether he realises that subsection (3) provides that the new Clause shall not have effect unless a person is already entitled to a retirement pension, that is to say, a person must be over 65. That should meet the point which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. The person concerned has to prove to the court that he has retired. I find it hard to believe that a court would be so unwise as not to be able to detect whether such a person was a genuine, retired person, or likely to become one. The fact that a man has to be over 65 is, I think, a sufficient safeguard in itself. The court will cross-examine him about his occupation, why he retired, and so on.
I should have thought that the chance of a bluff being established and of a man moving from house to house several times was very remote, and that compared with the risk of doing an injustice to 900,000 people was one which the House ought to find a way of circumventing. It can find a way if the will is there, and I believe that it is, not only on this side of the House, but among many hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. W. T. Williams: The hon. Gentleman talked about a person retiring from the police force. Does not

this show that one must bear in mind the fact that policemen and others retire a good deal before the age of 65?

Mr. King: I accept the point. I am pleading for the minimum that I can get. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that we should have more, I should be delighted to accept that. I am asking for the minimum provision for the person who has reached 65, and I suggest that both on the ground of humanity, and at law, the case has been as nearly made as any case can be, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to do his best to meet it.

Mr. Allason: The Bill has caused anxiety to many people. In new Clause No. 1 the Minister has found a way of relieving the anxieties on one particular point, and I am grateful to him for that. The anxiety with which the Minister deals in the Clause relates to the owner-occupier who goes away, possibly overseas, and then wants to return to his house. While he is away, he wants to let it, but he fears that he may not be able to get back into his house if he does so. This normally applies in the case of a furnished tenancy, because the owner-occupier has been living in the house. He has his furniture in it, and if he intends to be away for two or three years he lets it furnished. A furnished letting is expressly excluded from the new Clause, and I think that this takes away an enormous amount of its value.
We have tabled an Amendment to delete the words, "on a regulated tenancy". The Attorney-General seems to be under the impression that this stops such a letting becoming a regulated tenancy, because he said that "these lettings should become regulated tenancies". But if they are unfurnished, they will come under Clause 1, and they will be regulated tenancies. Our intention is to bring furnished tenancies within the scope of the scope of the Clause. This will assist a great deal in removing many of the anxieties which exist at present.
The Minister has admitted that there is a need to do this in the case of unfurnished tenancies. I do not think that he has made much of a case for saying that furnished tenancies are different under the law as it will be, and that they should not be included. I hope, therefore, that


he will accept our Amendment to leave out the words, "on a regulated tenancy", on the understanding that it does not save it from being a regulated tenancy, but merely brings furnished tenancies within the scope of the Clause.
I think that new Clause No. 11 has had a very good reception. It has been described as being much too wide and giving away too much. It has also been described as being much too narrow and not covering nearly a sufficient number of points. That means that it must be a very well drafted Clause. It is reasonably watertight. The Attorney-General said that it was not, but perhaps he had not noticed the word "thereafter" in line 2.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) rather tended to suggest that it was possible for a new owner to buy a house with a sitting tenant and then try to apply the procedure set out here. Under this procedure the owner has to acquire the house. It must never be subject to a regulated tenancy, and the first letting of the house is on the understanding that the owner will wish to move into it on his retirement. It would tend to be a newly-built house. Certainly, it would be one that has not been in the letting market before. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West would be attracted to this, because it would get his old people from Leicester to Folkestone and would create more houses in Leicester.
It seems to me that the principal objection to the proposed Clause No. 11 is that this operation might be carried out on a number of occasions. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the man concerned will have to be 65 years of age. Is it suggested that wicked old gentlemen of 65 or over will go trotting round the country obtaining vacant possession of houses which have never been let on a regulated tenancy, letting them and saying, "I am coming back in a year or two's time", turning the tenants out and obtaining vacant possession again, when they would be back to the position in which they were two years ago? There is no point in wicked old gentlemen carrying out these machinations. It is a pure figment of the imagination of the Government Front Bench to suggest that this operation would be attractive.
I want to say one thing about retirement. As I have said, the man concerned must be at least 65 years of age to qualify under the Clause. This fact disappoints many of my hon. Friends, who feel that the Clause ought to apply to Army officers, people serving overseas who retire at the age of 55, bank managers who retire at the age of 60, and so on, whereas the definition in the Clause refers to persons of 65 years of age. We have to draw the line somewhere, and this helps to make the Clause watertight. I suggest that it is watertight.
It has been suggested that an heir is included, but we cannot find anywhere in the Clause the suggestion that even a widow—certainly not the children of the man who has acquired a house as a residence—is entitled to benefit under the new Clause. I might be disposed to agree with those who say that the Clause is not wide enough; I certainly cannot agree with those who say that it goes too wide. They miss the point of the Clause. This is a necessary Clause and I hope that it will be accepted.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: When I read the names of the hon. Members who had put their names to new Clause No. 1, I hoped that at long last the Secretary of State for Scotland would appear to give us some enlightenment on the Scottish aspects of the Clause. Alas, he has not appeared. It is beyond our expectations that any Scottish Law Officers will provide explanations of the very difficult legal problems involved, but I did expect the Secretary of State to be here. The Under-Secretary of State is here, on one of his intermittent visits. I am sorry that he was not present when the Attorney-General spoke, because he dealt with the legal position as it affects England and Wales. All that he did for me in the event, however, was to confuse the issue. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some explanation.
I am very concerned about the meaning of the first two lines in the proposed new Clause No. 1. It speaks of
a person who has occupied a dwelling-house
in line 1 and, in line 2, of an owner-occupier. I do not know what an owner-occupier is. No such person is known


to the law of Scotland. The question of the ownership of heritable property in Scotland is a very difficult one. It may refer to the heritable proprietor or the person having a personal right. I should like an explanation from the Under-Secretary on this point.
It is easy to define a heritable proprietor. He is the person who has a registered title to the house. But many people in Scotland occupy houses without any such title. In fact, the majority of people have no heritable right; they merely have a personal right. Will the Joint Under-Secretary tell the House whether the Clause will apply to a person who has the normal type of building society loan, where the title to the house is in the name either of the building society or another creditor by what is known as an ex facie absolute disposition, on assignation without any qualification? This is an important matter because the building society, as the heritable proprietor, is the owner of that house and the occupier is the owner in the sense, that he has a personal right—depending on the good will of the creditor—to the reversionary ownership of the house when the loan is paid off. I am sorry that the Attorney-General did not deal with that point, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will obtain proper legal advice and make it quite clear before the Bill receives the Royal Assent.
I am further in great difficulty in regard to the position, which is very common in Scotland, in which the occupier of a house is a life-renter under a will. It is common practice for the owner of a house in Scotland to leave his house in life-rent to his widow. The widow is not the proprietor but a life-renter. Let us suppose that she leaves the house with the intention of coming back, or that some member of the family wants to come back. What is the position of the life-renter? This point ought to be made quite clear. It may be clear in English law, but it is not clear to me, at any rate, what the position is in Scotland.
The Attorney-General said that the position of the tenant in England was protected in circumstances like these. It may be that under the Scottish interpretation the tenant is also protected, but here again we are up against a difficulty, because we find it provided that the landlord,

and so not necessarily the occupier, must have given notice in writing to the tenant. Let us suppose that the person who had occupied the house was a tenant. What happens if he requests the landlord to give notice that possession may be recovered under the Clause and the landlord refuses? What happens to the tenant and his family if they subsequently want to recover possession, whether as owners or tenants, or in whatever way may apply at the time?
There is another real difficulty about the situation. Let us suppose that the occupier has left the house and that the house is subsequently required for a member of his family who was unborn at the time when the original occupier occupied the house. This is of vital importance. The Clause is well drafted to cover the case of a member of a family who had actually lived in the house when the original occupier was there, but 20 years or more may elapse before the house is required for occupation again and the original occupier may have died by then. The house might be required for the occupation of a younger member of the family. Does the Clause apply in that case? If so, how?
This brings us up against another vital problem. At the end of the day, who is entitled to recover possession of the house? Must it be the original occupier who applies for possession of the house? Let us suppose that the original occupier is dead. Is a member of the family entitled to ask for possession in his place? If so, which member of the family is so entitled? The Clause is quite indefinite. It might be that several members of a family will make competing applications for the same house. In that case what rule will govern the discretion of the court? All these matters are of great practical importance.
Most of the discussion this afternoon about new Clause No. 11 has been about civil servants and Army officers and people of that sort. I suggest that this Clause would be of immense value to a great many people in much humbler circumstances than that. It may be that a schoolmaster employed by a local authority in the course of his professional life moves about from one post to another. He may get a post for which there is a schoolhouse. In that


case, he is happily situated, but he may feel that he is getting on and that he could get promotion. He is then in the quandary of taking promotion by means of a post with which there is no schoolhouse. He may with forethought have furnished himself with a house, either by inheritance or by purchase. Is he, in those circumstances, to be denied the right to occupy his own house, if that is necessary for the purpose of taking the last appointment before his retirement? This is a matter of great importance.
I suggest that there are a number of important points in the Clause which have not been thought out. I hope that a considerable amount of thought will be given to this at later stages, and that, so far as these important Scottish issues are concerned, the Under-Secretary of State will take proper legal advice and bring in the necessary Amendments in another place.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I should like to underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) said about the unborn child. This is one of the cases in which it is necessary to widen the definition of those people who can recover possession. It is very much wider than my hon. Friend thought.
Suppose a person had established his residential qualification in the first place by living in the house with his parents or with one parent. He then goes abroad and, during his service there, he marries. If, on his way home, he is killed or dies as a result of an accident, his wife is not able to recover, under this Clause, even though she may have three children and nowhere else to go. Surely the whole object is to protect the immediate family, the wives and children. There are obviously other cases which could occur in which the children may be born and of a relatively advanced age, but, for one reason or another, are not living with the householder during the relevant period.
They might be permanently abroad at school or suffering from a long illness and in a hospital. One can envisage cases in which the people for whom I imagine the right hon. Gentleman is most concerned—the wives and children—would be excluded. I would ask the right hon.

Gentleman to consider at any rate writing in specifically that this Clause will apply to children of the owner-occupier, as defined in this Clause, and to his wife. This is important. There are, obviously, cases in which both the wife and the children or some of their children may be ruled out and one of those ruled out may be a child in greatest need. In the case which I mentioned in passing, that of the child suffering from a long illness, grown up that child may well be entirely dependent and in greater need of a house than the other members of the family. I hope that the Minister will look at this sympathetically.
The Minister said that he had been unable to find any words which would enable the farmer to be covered who had let a farm cottage during a period when he did not require it for the working of his farm, but expected that he would require it at a later date. I would ask the Minister to look at this again. I would suggest a way by which he could meet us half way. In my experience, these cases arise broadly in two forms. There is the case in which, as I have just mentioned, the man does not want the house for the time being simply because he is not expecting to increase the farm and does not want such a large staff or is carrying out a system of management of a temporary nature and he contemplates changes which would bring about an increase in his staff.
I imagine that that is the case which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind and with which he is concerned, but there is also the case of a man knowing that he will want the house for a specified member of his existing staff. Very often, there is the case of an existing farm worker who has a son who works on the farm and lives in the cottage, generally a service cottage, with his parents. The farmer knows perfectly well that as soon as that young man gets married he will wish to keep him on the staff and give him a cottage. I suggest that the Minister would be helping to some extent if he drafted a Clause which would enable the cottage to be available for a named employee or a certain category of employee.
This is an important case to be considered. In my own case, where I had cottages before the 1957 Rent Act, I kept them vacant. I had to, for precisely


this reason. I employed an unmarried man who was about to be married and I did not wish to sack him when he got married. I kept the house. It deteriorated and there were other people who could well have made use of it. This is a wasteful use of the natural resources.
I would stress again, as my hon. Friend has stressed, that new Clause 11 requires vacant possession of the house to have been attained at some stage. It applies only if the man has created a new tenancy after having acquired the ownership. Therefore, it applies only to a tenancy in which the tenant may be fully aware of the situation. I think that this is also relevant to cases in which the purchaser has almost certainly purchased on vacant possession value or had the opportunity to sell at that value. With this overall rent control proposed by the Government, there is no doubt that the "premium" for vacant possession will rise substantially.
Unless we have a Clause of this sort, it will be virtually impossible for any one to buy in contemplation of retirement. Not only will there be no certainty of their getting that house, but there will be the certainty that if they do not get vacant possession, they will not be able to sell at a price which vacant possession would command. This is a matter of some importance. So far as I know, there is no case in the law books where this factor has been taken into account under the 1933 Act. I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman to look again, as he has promised he will do, and to bear these points in mind in regard to catering for the man buying in contemplation of retirement.
I am certain that the definition in Clause 1 is much too narrow even for the Minister's purposes.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As you put it at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, this has been a kind of Second Reading debate. It has thrown up a number of very difficult issues but two things emerge clearly from it. The first is that hon. Members on both sides of the House are not happy about the present state of the Bill so far as it deals with the general question of the owner occupier seeking to resume possession of a house.
Secondly, I think that it is clear, though I do not know whether I carry hon. Members opposite with me—[Laughter.] I think that I do on the first point. It is clear that this whole series of problems flows from the right hon. Gentleman's decision to impose rent regulation and security of tenure over the whole country and up to very high rateable values. This creates many kinds of problem which I accept that the Minister himself wants to solve. But they are the direct consequence of that decision. Therefore, it is the Government's responsibility—though we are doing our best to assist them—to get this right.
I agree with the remark which the right hon. Gentleman made in his opening speech. He said that in all these landlord-tenant questions there was a delicate question of balance, that one had to calculate carefully where the balance of fairness lay between the landlord and the tenant. I accept that, but I urge the Government to realise that on this subject we are dealing with a category of cases in which the balance is not the ordinary one between the commercial landlord and his tenant.
7.0 p.m.
We are dealing with a class of case where ex hypothesi the tenant came in on the strict understanding that he would go out on a certain date—in circumstances in which he would not have been allowed in at all had he not solemnly pledged himself to go out on that date. We are dealing only in this series of proposals with the case of a tenant who, having come in on that basis, pledge and understanding, none the less seeks to remain after the date on which he pledged himself to go.
We are, at the same time, dealing with a landlord who is not seeking possession of the house for commercial profit, for commercial operations or even to obtain an income, but with a landlord who wants his house for the basic and respectable purpose of living in it. I therefore suggest that the balance to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly referred should be placed at a quite different point from where it might be placed under the other provisions of the Bill in respect of ordinary commercial tenancies.
There is no disguising the fact that there is very wide concern about this aspect


of the Bill. I have received more letters on this subject than on any other part of the Measure—and I have received a great many letters from various parts of the Country, and significantly, from our fellow citizens serving overseas. The kind of situation which so far has not been remedied, despite the proposed new Clause, is of the man with a wife and family, probably with a lot of baggage, coming back after a tour of duty abroad, whether in the service of the Crown or a company trading overseas, to find that the house which he was intending to go into is, despite the pledged word of the tenant, still being occupied by that tenant.
The typical case is that of a man, his wife and children arriving with all the baggage that such a family would have, the canary in the cage, children crying after a long air journey—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Hon. Gentlemen opposite should be aware of the general misery of those who travel long distances with their families. They arrive to find that they cannot move into the house into which they expected to move. It is no use saying to a chap in that position, "All right, we have a new Clause under which you can go to the county court and, after a certain procedure has been gone through, you can obtain your house". What that person needs immediately is his house. I suggest that he is entitled to it and immediately. That is why, as the debate has made clear, we have received the Clause with somewhat modified rapture.
Naturally, the new Clauses improve the Bill as presented, but it would be an illusion to think that they will relieve the apprehensions which were originally raised by the Bill, because they will not. There will still be the problem of someone returning from abroad finding that if his tenant desires to stay on he will have not a house but a lawsuit. One cannot get away from the fact that the tenant who is likely to stay on in default of his pledged word—and they will be the minority of tenants—will be encouraged so to do if it is convenient for him to do so—that is, by the knowledge that his landlord can do nothing but take him to the county court.
The Attorney-General tried to suggest that the procedure of going to the county court would not take a long time. He

referred to what he described—using a word I thought in an unusual sense for a law officer of the Crown—as the evidence given in Standing Committee. He referred to a speech of his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and—

The Attorney-General: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds, I was referring to a document which had been supplied to me in somewhat dramatic circumstances, as he will remember, in the course of the debates in Committee.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I recall the document supplied to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was evidence only to him. It was not, as would be the practice, an official document laid before the House. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman now wishes to treat it as a real document, he should lay it as such. Whether it was laid or addled, it does not take the matter very far, even on its face value. After all, what does it amount to? It is that of about 7,000 actions for possession, the expedited procedure was, in the first quarter of this year, asked for in 90 cases.
I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted in Committee that the vast majority of people, even practising solicitors, were at that time quite unaware of it. No doubt that is why only 90 applications were made. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has grasped the significance of the small scale of cases, but if one has only 90-odd cases with which to deal, they should indeed be dealt with with expedition. Had the Government done their duty in publicising the matter plainly, there should have been far more cases seeking the priority rights of the expedited procedure. In the nature of things, the more priority passengers one has the greater the congestion. Not only are those 90 cases not an adequate statistical sample of the total cases but we can assume that there will be a loss in value and speed as the procedure becomes more known, as it should become more widely known.

The Attorney-General: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the lesson of those figures is, broadly speaking, the fact that the normal procedures in the courts are proving adequate in dealing with the needs of those who want possession of premises and that where there are


abnormal circumstances calling for these emergency procedures to be used those are proving highly effective? I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman keeps running down the processes of the court in this way.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not running down the processes of the court but criticising the Government's implementation of their undertaking. Those figures do not indicate any satisfaction with the procedures of the courts. They indicate—and this was admitted in Committee—a lack of knowledge that this procedure even existed, even among professional men, and we are talking of figures relating to the first quarter of the year.
We have also had virtually no evidence—if it be evidence—of the position in the country. The Government have persistently refused to do what we suggested and make rules of court under which it would be possible to bring the proceedings before the county court judge at any court at which he operated on his circuit to get him at the first point on his circuit at which it was possible to get the proceedings in order. We asked the Government to deal with the problem in the country. I understand that the Lord Chancellor has done nothing of the sort. I believe that he has done nothing except send round a circular. Therefore, I do not find the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention on this point at all encouraging.
I hope that the Government will do better, that they will be able to give proper publicity to the possibilities of the expedited procedure and that they will be able to give firm instructions about the priority of these cases. Equally, I hope that they will tackle the question of the county court judge on his circuit. None of those things have been done, although they are the least the Government should have done.
I come to new Clause No. 2. The right hon. Gentleman was generous enough to attribute to us the parentage of the new Clause, but I am not sure that many of my hon. Friends will be quite as anxious as he seemed to think to admit paternity.
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that in Committee attention was drawn to the fact that whereas clergy of the Church of England could be removed

from their parsonages by their superior authorities at once—and, as was pointed out to him, by continuing the Pluralities Act, 1838, the Government were continuing that in this Bill—all the procedures and so on would apply to ministers of other denominations. I think the right hon. Gentleman accepts that a distinction of that sort is quite indefensible, but as new Clause No. 2 stands, unless our Amendments are accepted, there is still a very considerable distinction and differentiation made between clergy of the Established Church, on the one hand, and clergy of the Roman Catholic, Nonconformist and other Churches on the other.
As I say, the position is preserved by Clause 29(4) of the Bill. In the case of clergy of the Church of England, all that is needed is an order from the bishop. In the case of all other clergy, it is necessary for them to be taken to the county court, and again the county court will have the right to give a discretionary period of four to six weeks. Therefore, whatever else the right hon. Gentleman has done, he has not closed the difference between the treatment of clergy of the different denominations. I suggest that it is quite indefensible. I think the provision in respect of the Church of England is right. I speak as a member of that Church and, naturally, from that point of view, I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman for giving the right treatment to the Church to which I belong. But I find it difficult to defend different treatments of other Churches, whose problems in obtaining houses, manses and presbyteries are no different from those of the Church of England in obtaining parsonages. Therefore, in this new Clause No. 2, the right hon. Gentleman has not really dealt with the point raised in Committee.
Then I come, in respect of both new Clause No. 1 and new Clause No. 2, to what seems to me to be a very unfortunate aspect of this provision. The returning traveller under new Clause No. 1 and the church authorities other than the Church of England under new Clause No. 2 have not only to take whoever is in the property to the county court. The county court still has preserved to it the right to exercise its discretion and make the order effective only in four to six weeks' time. Even if the right hon. Gentleman were wedded to his concept that


everyone had to go through the county court, why was it necessary in these cases to preserve that discretionary power, and why was it not possible to provide that the order should be made immediately? That would do something to meet the difficulty in both these cases. The failure to do it makes us look at these new Clauses with approval that any improvement should have been made, but with regret that the opportunity has not been taken to make a proper job of it.
I come now to new Clause No. 11, and there the House is left in a very unsatisfactory and unhappy position. The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silk in) introduced a damning criticism of the present position when pointing out that a person who had bought a house for his retirement and who managed to get into it first for a period could get the advantages, such as they are, of new Clause No. 1, whereas a person similarly placed who did not get in at an early stage was left in the position of any other landlord under the Bill. That is a very serious criticism, and I note that both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Attorney-General said they did accept that the position was far from satisfactory, but that they found difficulty in providing anything better. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Attorney-General expressed the hope that another place might be able to find a more satisfactory solution.
I share that hope, but I am not sure if it is entirely satisfactory after we have been debating this for the best part of three months since Second Reading, when the Government had presumably made preparations for some months before that, that we should be asked to part with the Bill with the bland admission of the Government that there is here a problem which they are not prepared or are not able to remedy now, but part with the Bill in the pious hope that another place may be able to do better than this House has done. I note with interest this newfound enthusiasm of the Government for another place. It is an enthusiasm which I certainly wish to encourage, but, in all seriousness, it is not a satisfactory way for the House to leave the Bill.

7.15 p.m.

I would make this suggestion to the House. The right hon. and learned Attorney-General was quite critical of the drafting of the Clause. He described it as nebulous, too wide and offering chances for abuses. That may be so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had some experience of drafting Clauses in Opposition—an experience which I have no doubt he will be shortly resuming. But at least it attempts to tackle the problem and puts forward something which is an improvement on the Bill. If the right hon. and learned Attorney-General is right in his criticisms, is it not right for us to put the Clause in the Bill and leave to another place, not the task of initiating the improvement, but of making the necessary polishings and improvements which the new Clause itself may require? Is it not only a better and more sensible way, but also the proper way to use another place?

As the Government have failed to produce anything to deal with a problem which they admit exists, about which hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed anxiety and which is causing anxiety outside, let us make one step forward and, when the time comes, put new Clause No. 11 into the Bill and leave it to those noble Lords in another place, for whom the Government have such admiration, to take out any blemishes they may see in it. I suggest that in that way we shall have done a more workmanlike job in this House in improving the legislation, so that when it becomes law at least the damage which the right hon. Gentleman's soaring conceptions involve will be diminished and curtailed.

Question, That the Clause be read a Second time, put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause, In line 2, leave out "on a regulated tenancy".—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Question put, That the words "on a regulated tenancy" stand part of the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 160.

Division No. 215.]
AYES
[7.18 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Atkinson, Norman
Baxter, William


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bacon, Miss Alice
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Binns, John




Bishop, E. S.
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Probert, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Randall, Harry


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rankin, John


Boardman, H.
Jackson, Colin
Rees, Merlyn


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rowland, Christopher


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sheldon, Robert


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Buchanan, Richard
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ledger, Ron
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Carmichael, Neil
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lomas, Kenneth
Sllverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Lubbock, Eric
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam
McBride, Neil
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McCann, J.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGuire, Michael
Stonehouse, John


Dell, Edmund
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Stones, William


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Swain, Thomas


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Symonds, J. B.


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Taverne, Dick


Ensor, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Manuel, Archie
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Thorpe, Jeremy


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Mason, Roy
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mayhew, Christopher
Tomney, Frank


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mellish, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, J. J.
Varley, Eric G.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin


Garrow, A.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William
Wallace, George


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Warbey, William


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Watkins, Tudor


Grey, Charles
Murray, Albert
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold
Whitlock, William


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Hale, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Norwood, Christopher
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hannan, William
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Harper, Joseph
Orme, Stanley
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hazell, Bert
Padley, Walter
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Holman, Percy
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hooson, H. E.
Parker, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Horner, John
Parkin, B. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence



Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howie, W.
Pentland, Norman
Mr. George Lawson and


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dean, Paul


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Buck, Antony
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Doughty, Charles


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Drayson, G. B.


Astor, John
Campbell, Gordon
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Carlisle, Mark
Errington, Sir Eric


Barlow, Sir John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Batsford, Brian
Chataway, Christopher
Farr, John


Bell, Ronald
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Biffen, John
Cole, Norman
Glover, Sir Douglas


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bingham, R. M.
Corfield, F. V.
Gower, Raymond


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Costain, A. P.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)


Blaker, Peter
Crawley, Aidan
Gurden, Harold


Box, Donald
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)


Braine, Bernard
Curran, Charles
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Brewis, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dance, James
Harvey, Sir. Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)







Hay, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hendry, Forbes
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Talbot, John E.


Higgins, Terence L.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Monro, Hector
Teeling, Sir William


Hirst, Geoffrey
More, Jasper
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hordern, Peter
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Iremonger, T. L.
Murton, Oscar
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Jennings, J. C.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Walder, David (High Peak)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peel, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Percival, Ian
Walters, Dennis


Kilfedder, James A.
Peyton, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Kirk, Peter
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kitson, Timothy
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Whitelaw, William


Lambton, Viscount
Pitt, Dame Edith
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pym, Francis
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Longden, Gilbert
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Wise, A. R.


Loveys, Walter H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


McMaster, Stanley
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wylie, N. R.


McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Robson Brown, Sir William
Younger, Hn, George


Maginnis, John E.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



Marten, Neil
Scott-Hopkins, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mathew, Robert
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Mr. Dudley Smith and


Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith
Mr. G. Johnson Smith.


Mawby, Ray
Stanley, Hn. Richard

Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause, Leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert:
the letting shall not create a regulated tenancy but shall create a tenancy which shall be a protected tenancy within the meaning of section 28 of this Act".—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 162.

Division No. 216.]
AYES
[7.29 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ensor, David
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Atkinson, Norman
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kenyon, Clifford


Baxter, William
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Cenfral)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Ledger, Ron


Binns, John
Garrow, A.
Lee, Mrs. Jennie (Cannock)


Bishop, E. S.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Blackburn, F.
Ginsburg, David
Lomas, Kenneth


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Lubbock, Eric


Boardman, H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bowmen, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Grey, Charles
McBride, Neil


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McCann, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
MacCall, James


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hale, Leslie
McGuire, Michael


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mclnnes, James


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hannan, William
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch Fbury)
Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Buchanan, Richard
Hazell, Bert
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Manuel, Archie


Carmichael, Neil
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mapp, Charles


Coleman, Donald
Holman, Percy
Mason, Roy


Crawshaw, Richard
Hooson, H. E.
Mayhew, Christopher


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Horner, John
Mellish, Robert


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendelson, J. J.


Dalyell, Tam
Howie, W.
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Molloy, William


Dell, Edmund
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Doig, Peter
Jackson, Colin
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Murray, Albert


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; P'cras, S.)
Neal, Harold




Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Rose, Paul B.
Varley, Eric G.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Rowland, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin


Norwood, Christopher
Sheldon, Robert
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


O'Malley, Brian
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Orbach, Maurice
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Wallace, George


Orme, Stanley
Silkin, John (Deptford)
Warbey, William


Oswald, Thomas
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Watkins, Tudor


Padley, Walter
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Weitzman, David


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Whitlock, William


Palmer, Arthur
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Pannell, Rt. Hon. Charles
Small, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Parker, John
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Parkin, B. T.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Pavitt, Laurence
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Storehouse, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pentland, Norman
Stones, William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Swain, Thomas
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Probert, Arthur
Symonds, J. B.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Randall, Harry
Taverne, Dick
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rankin, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Rees, Merlyn
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thorpe, Jeremy
Zilliacus, K.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James



Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N)
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Fitch.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Gower, Raymond
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffths, Peter (Smethwick)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Gurden, Harold
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Astor, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Balniel, Lord
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Peel, John


Barlow, Sir John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Percival, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Peyton, John


Bell, Ronald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biffen, John
Hay, John
Pitt, Dame Edith


Biggs-Davison, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bingham, R. M.
Hendry, Forbes
Pym, Francis


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Higgins, Terence L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Black, Sir Cyril
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Blaker, Peter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Box, Donald
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Braine, Bernard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Brewis, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jennings, J. C.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Buck, Antony
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Stainton, Keith


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Campbell, Gordon
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Studholme, Sir Henry


Carlisle, Mark
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Talbot, John E.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kilfedder, James A.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Chataway, Christopher
Kirk, Peter
Teeling, Sir William


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lambton, Viscount
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Cole, Norman
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Cooke, Robert
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Corfield, F. V.
Longden, Gilbert
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Costain, A. P.
Loveys, Walter H.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Walder, David (High Peak)


Crawley, Aidan
MacArthur, Ian
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
McMaster, Stanley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Walters, Dennis


Curran, Charles
Maginnis, John E.
Ward, Dame Irene


Dalkeith, Earl of
Marten, Neil
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Dance, James
Mathew, Robert
Whitelaw, William


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Maude, Angus
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Dean, Paul
Mawby, Ray
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Dodds Parker, Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Doughty, Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wise, A. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Eyre, Reginald
Monro, Hector
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Farr, John
More, Jasper
Wylie, N. R.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Murton, Oscar
Mr. R. W. Elliott and




Mr. Dudley Smith.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 2.—(RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF DWELLING-HOUSE HELD FOR OCCUPATION BY MINISTER OF RELIGION.)

(1) Where a dwelling-house is held for the purpose of being available for occupation by a minister of religion as a residence from which to perform the duties of his office and the dwelling-house has been let on a regulated tenancy, then if—

(a) the tenant has been given notice in writing before the commencement of the tenancy (or, if the tenancy was created before the commencement of this Act, not later than six months after the commencement of this Act) that possession may be recovered under this section; and
(b) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house; and
(c) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required for occupation by a minister of religion as such a residence;

the court shall make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, whether or not it

would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5 (2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.

(2) In the application of this section to Scotland for any reference to a minister of religion there shall be substituted a reference to a minister or full-time lay missionary of any religious denomination.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause, In line 3 leave out "on a regulated tenancy".—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Question put,"on a regulated tenancy" stand part of the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 161.

Division No. 217.]
AYES
17.39 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Grey, Charles
Mayhew, Christopher


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mellish, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mendelson, J. J.


Atkinson, Norman
Hale, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Baxter, William
Hannan, William
Molloy, William


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Binns, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bishop, E. S.
Hazell, Bert
Murray, Albert


Blackburn, F.
Heffer, Eric S.
Neal, Harold


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Boardman, H.
Holman, Percy
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. w. (Leics S. W.)
Hooson, H. E.
Norwood, Christopher


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Horner, John
Orbach, Maurice


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Padley, Walter


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Parker, John


Buchanan, Richard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Parkin, B. T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Carmichael, Neil
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Probert, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Randall, Harry


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rankin, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ledger, Ron
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dell, Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Lubbock, Eric
Rose, Paul B.


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rowland, Christopher


Ensor, David
McBride, Neil
Sheldon, Robert


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
McCann, J.
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, James
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mclnnes, James
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Garrow, A.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Small, William


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfleld, E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Ginsburg, David
Manuel, Archie
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gourlay, Harry
Mapp, Charles
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mason, Roy
Stonehouse, John




Stones, William
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Swain, Thomas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Symonds, J. B.
Wallace, George
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Taverns, Dick
Warbey, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Watkins, Tudor
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Weitzman, David
Winterbottom, R. E.


Thorpe, Jeremy
Whitlock, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Tinn, James
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George
Zilliacus, K.


Tomney, Frank
Wilkina, W. A.



Tuck, Raphael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Fitch.


Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)





NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Gower, Raymond
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Gurden, Harold
Peel, John


Astor, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Peyton, John


Barlow, Sir John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Batsford, Brian
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bell, Ronald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biffen, John
Hay, John
Pym, Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bingham, R. M.
Hendrey, Forbes
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Marlin


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Higgins, Terence L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Renton, Rt. Hon. Sir David


Blaker, Peter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Box, Donald
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hordern, Peter
Robson Brown, Sir William


Braine, Bernard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brewis, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jennings, J. C.
Stainton, Keith


Buck, Antony
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Studholme, Sir Henry


Campbell, Gordon
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Talbot, John E.


Carlisle, Mark
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kilfedder, James A.
Teeling, Sir William


Chataway, Christopher
Kirk, Peter
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lambton, Viscount
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Cole, Norman
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Cooke, Robert
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Corfield, F. V.
Longden, Gilbert
Vickers, Dame Joan


Costain, A. P.
Loveys, Walter H.
Walder, David (High Peak)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthome)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Crawley, Aidan
McMaster, Stanley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Walters, Dennis


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Maginnis, John E.
Ward, Dame Irene


Curran, Charles
Marten, Neil
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mathew, Robert
Whitelaw, William


Dance, James
Maude, Angus
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Davjes, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Mawby, Ray
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Dean, Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wise, A. R.


Doughty, Charles
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Drayson, G. B.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Monro, Hector
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Errington, Sir Eric
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wylie, N. R.


Eyre, Reginald
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Younger, Hn. George


Farr, John
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Mr. MacArthur and


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. Ian Fraser.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 3. —(POWER TO CONVERT EXISTING CONTROLLED TENANCIES INTO REGULATED TENANCIES.)

New Clause No. 3.—(POWER TO CONVERT EXISTING CONTROLLED TENANCIES INTO REGULATED TENANCIES.)



(1) Section 11(3) of the Rent Act 1957 (release from control) shall cease to have etfect.



(2) In this section "existing controlled tenancy" means—



(a) a tenancy to which the Rent Acts apply apart from section 1 of this Act;


5
(b) a statutory tenancy arising (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) on the termination of such a tenancy as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection.


10
(3) The Minister may by order provide as respects any area in England and Wales or in Scotland that where the rateable value on a date specified in the order of a dwelling-house in that area exceeded such amount as may be so specified and the dwelling-house is subject to an existing controlled tenancy the existing controlled tenancy shall be treated as a regulated tenancy.



(4) An order under this section may contain such transitional provisions as appear to the Minister to be desirable.


15
(5) A tenancy or statutory tenancy to which an order under this section applies shall be disregarded for the purposes of section 3(3)(a) of this Act, and in relation to any rental period of such a statutory tenancy beginning after the order comes into operation sections 5 and 6 of this Act shall have effect as if references therein to the last contractual period were references to the last rental period beginning before the order comes into operation.


20


25
(6) A notice of increase served under section 7 of this Act in respect of an existing controlled tenancy which by virtue of an order under this section is treated as a regulated tenancy shall only be valid if the rent specified in it does not exceed by more that 15 per cent. of the controlled rent the rent payable for the rental period beginning twelve months before the notice takes effect, except so far as the increase relates to such part of the rent registered under this Act as may in pursuance of the order be distinguished in the register as attributable to the provision of additional or improved services or furniture or the carrying out of an improvement; and in ascertaining for the purposes of this subsection the amount of the rent payable for any rental period, any amount payable in respect of rates borne by the landlord or a superior landlord shall be disregarded.


30



In this subsection "the controlled rent" means the rent payable for the last rental period beginning before the order comes into operation.


35
(7) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such order shall have effect unless it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Mr. MacColl].

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss with new Clause No. 3 the following Amendments, in line 21, leave out subsection (6); in line 24, leave out "of"; and in line 24, leave out from first "rent" to "except" in line 25.

Mr. MacColl: That suggestion would certainly lead to a more convenient debate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
This is one of two new Clauses which are designed to take the place of the present Clause 15. Clause 15 in the Bill attracted an interesting and constructive debate in Committee on 18th May. My right hon. Friend at the end of that debate

promised to have a look at the drafting of Clause 15 to see whether it could be tightened up and made rather more precise. Later on, if this new Clause and new Clause No. 4 are accepted, we shall move to delete Clause 15.
Clause 15 deals with two different questions—the movement from what can roughly be called old control to regulation and the movement from regulation to decontrol. The new Clause deals only with the movement from old control to regulation. I will go through the Clause and explain fairly shortly how it is designed to work. Subsection (1) abolishes Section 11(3) of the Rent Act 1957. The original control in Clause 15 worked on the basis of Section 11(3)—altering it, but accepting it as the background for the operation. This was criticised on the grounds that it was a little vague, that it made it difficult to know precisely how the machinery would work, and that it was a dangerous introduction of the 1957 provisions by


reference into the Bill. Therefore, the Clause starts by providing that Section 11(3) will no longer have effect. The Clause offers alternative machinery.

Mr. Graham Page: Are we correct in understanding that this Clause abolishes the process of going direct from control to decontrol and that, if ever it were desired to decontrol now controlled property, the process of going through regulation and then decontrol would have to be followed?

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman is right in thus interpreting the Clause. Subsection (2) provides that "existing controlled tenancy" within the meaning of the rest of the Clause is

"(a) a tenancy to which the Rent Acts apply …
(b) a statutory tenancy arising … on the termination of such a tenancy as is mentioned in paragraph (a)".

I do not suppose that there are many such tenancies still in operation. In most cases by now the tenancies will have been terminated by notices to quit and we shall be dealing only with statutory tenancies. However, there are probably some outstanding, and they are dealt with under the Clause.
Subsection (3) provides that
The Minister may … as respects any area in England and Wales or in Scotland
make an Order. This is different from what is in Clause 15, because it does not enable the Minister to make an Order covering the whole country. He can only cover an area, although the size of the area is undetermined—it may be large; it may be small. He may provide
as respects any area … that where the rateable value … in that area exceeded such amount as may be … specified and the dwelling-house is subject to an existing controlled tenancy the existing controlled tenancy shall be treated as a regulated tenancy".
The implications of this are that, above any change in the existing rateable value limits which is made by the Order, dwelling-houses coming within that bracket of rateable values are not decontrolled but come into regulated tenancies, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said.
Subsection (4) provides for making transitional provisions. These will probably

be mostly administrative provisions because the new Clause, as opposed to Clause 15, is fairly precise in defining how the machinery will work.
Subsection (5) provides for freezing rent after the Order has been made. The way the Bill is designed to work is that in the first stage rents are frozen at existing levels before they are altered by the machinery of the Bill. This subsection provides that the frozen rent shall be the same as the old controlled rent.
Subsection (6) limits the amount of the increase of rent that can be charged by the landlord to 15 per cent. in any one year. This is mandatory on the Minister. No discretion is left with the Minister to vary that limit.
Subsection (7) provides that the power to make an Order under the Clause shall be subject to the positive procedure; that is, there must be an affirmative Resolution of each House before it can come into operation.
Perhaps I should explain how this machinery is designed to work. At the first stage the Order is made. The rents are frozen at the existing old controlled levels. There is no immediate increase. At the second stage the landlord can apply to the rent officer, and then either the rent officer or the tenant can go to the rent assessment committee and the machinery will fix a fair rent within the meaning of Clause 22, which defines the fair rent for regulated tenancies. That fair rent may increase, decrease or remain the same, depending on the rent assessment committee's appraisal of what is a fair rent in comparison with the old controlled rent. The old controlled rent is linked to rateable values. The fair rent is not linked to rateable values. It is an assessment of what the property in its existing state of repair is worth. Therefore, in some cases the fair rent may be less than the old controlled rent. In some cases the rent assessment committee might think that there should be no difference. In some cases the fair rent might be greater. That is the end of the function of the rent assessment committee for the moment in fixing the fair rent.
Then the landlord, having got his fair rent, is limited by the Clause in the amount he can claim from the tenant. He cannot claim more than the fair rent.


He can claim up to the fair rent, provided that his claim does not involve an increase of more than 15 per cent. per annum. The next year he can charge another 15 per cent. of the old controlled rent, not of the increased rent. It is not, as it were, compound interest. It is simple interest. It is 15 per cent. of the old controlled rent each time. The landlord can go on in that way until such time as he reaches the fair rent. If the fair rent happens to be less than the old controlled rent, the tenant can apply under the procedure of the Bill for a reduction in rent.
It may be of some assistance, to the House if I give some idea of the amounts involved. By definition only low rents are involved, because all the old controlled dwellings are below the rateable value limits fixed in the 1957 Act. Therefore, the maximum increase in a year on the highest rented old controlled property in London would be about £20 a year or 8s. a week. In the provinces, where the rateable value limits are lower than they are in London, £15 would be about the maximum increase, which is about 6s. a week.
8.0 p.m.
The Clause is concerned with movement from old controlled rent to regulation. This means that all the provisions about security of tenure remain, and the position of the tenant, apart from his rent, is not affected because the provisions for security of tenure are the same for regulated tenancies as for the old controlled tenancies. The tenant remains subject to the same type of protection by the courts as he has in his existing position. What differs is that he is subject to the increased rent up to what is thought to be a fair rent, subject to the absolute maximum increases provided in subsection (6) of the Bill.
The only other point is the effect of the movement upon the repair position. I will not go into it in detail, because it comes up under Clause 22 and the Schedules. Roughly, the position is that instead of having machinery for the deduction of rent where repairs are not done, the rent officer takes into account the state of repair of the dwelling when he fixes the fair rent. If the condition alters during the three years for which the fair rent lasts, an application can be made

to have the rent varied because of the change in the position.
This is different and perhaps more flexible machinery to take into account the condition of the house, but this will come more closely under our survey when we look at Clause 22 and the Schedules.

Mr. Allason: I must plead guilty to a great deal of the time which will be spent now on the Bill, because it was I who suggested in Standing Committee that Clause 15 was extremely unsatisfactory in that it dealt with two entirely different subjects, and the rubric dealt only with one. I suggested that it should be split into two Clauses. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the fact that by extending it to two Clauses he has made the provisions clearer, with less reference to the Rent Act, 1957, and more actual facts, and yet at the same time he has managed to get it into the same number of words.
When he was considering Clause 15 the Minister gave a number of undertakings. He undertook to consider whether it would be possible to rewrite the Clause into two Clauses, and that he has done. He undertook to remove the power under Clause 15(2), which it was not intended to have but which somehow swept in in error. He undertook to do this by having power to move from controlled to uncontrolled tenancies without passing through rent regulations, and, as we have heard, this has been incorporated in the Bill. He undertook to seek power to vary rateable value and see whether whole areas should be taken out of the scope of the Bill. I am not at all clear to what extent he has met that particular undertaking, and I should be grateful if we could have some explanation on that point.
The Minister's last undertaking was that he would seek to provide for the prevention of rent increase beyond a certain figure. This is fulfilled in the new subsection (6). The new Clause No. 3 in general terms repeats the substance of Section 11(3) of the Rent Act, 1957. All the points there now reappear here, but this makes the position a great deal clearer than when we had to go back to the 1957 Act to understand what the provisions would be when it came to changing controlled tenancies into regulated tenancies.
It gives the Minister great pleasure, no doubt, that he can say that even more of the wicked Rent Act has been repealed, because by repealing Section 11(3) the amount of the Rent Act which is being repealed is almost doubled, but in fact it is being rewritten in other words. No doubt, however, that will be welcomed.
Subsection (6) is extremely difficult to understand. Many people have taken it to mean that it is a once-for-all 15 per cent. increase. I am grateful for the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation that it means something else. It is a pity that when the new Clause was put down a Press statement was not issued by the Ministry explaining what it meant. It is extremely obscure. Instead of that, there was some sort of Press leak from the Ministry which gave the impression that three increases of 15 per cent. and three only would be allowed. This may well have been a misunderstanding of the position. As I understand, it is a 15 per cent. of the original controlled rent increase allowed per year until the regulated rent is reached.
This is unsatisfactory in that it introduces a new form of controlled tenancy. Many different forms of tenancy arise under the Bill and here a statutory tenancy starts moving out of being what have been known as a statutory tenancy and becomes a different short of statutory tenancy on an escalatory scale. What on earth that sort of tenancy will be called I do not know.
I suggest that it is not necessary to lay it down here, in any case, because under subsection (4) an order made under the Section when the Bill becomes an Act may contain such transitional provisions as appear to the Minister to be desirable. Therefore, the Minister can perfectly well lay down that the scale should be 15 per cent. or any other percentage when he comes to make the order.
I imagine that these orders will be very widely spaced. The Minister may well decide that in certain areas, where he finds that there is limitless accommodation and few statutory tenancies exist, that it is rather ridiculous to have a statutory tenancy alongside a large number of regulated tenancies, and he can move very quickly. I visualise, on the

other hand, that in London it will be a much slower process of moving from controlled tenancy to regulated tenancy. Certainly with the cheapest properties it will be a good many years before this comes up.
It seems odd that we should lay down in the Bill that precisely 15 per cent. is the perfect percentage which shall operate for all time. I think that it would be more satisfactory if subsection (6) was left out. Then if the Minister felt, when he came to make a particular order, that he wanted to put in 15 per cent., he could do so. In laying down 15 per cent. now, the Minister is tying down the hands of his successors for perhaps many years to come.
I welcome the new Clause No. 3 because it seems to me so much simpler to understand, with the exception of the wicked subsection (6) which is quite appalling and which I hope will be amended in another place.

Mr. Julius Silverman: As the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has said, whilst this new Clause No. 3 repeals Section 11(3) of the Rent Act it re-enacts most of its provisions with some modifications, or rather so do new Clauses Nos. 3 and 4 together.
For my part, and this applies to a large number of my hon. Friends, we do not like Section 11(3). Our party fought this at the time most strenuously and we are alarmed that it should be reinserted even in a modified form in the Bill. I want to mention what was said on this subject by the official spokesman of the party, the present Lord Mitchison. On Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading we made it quite clear that we were against this provision.
The words used by my noble Friend Lord Mitchison were:
The sole safeguard is that there shall be an affirmative Resolution of Parliament. What does an affirmative Resolution mean by comparison with what there ought to be—a new Statute?
I agree entirely with this, even today. If we are to alter the structure of present controlled rents, this should not be done by order or regulation. There should be new legislation providing—and this is most important—that side by side with any increase of rents there should


be adequate provision for repairs, which there is not in the new Clause or anywhere in the Bill. Lord Mitchison added:
An affirmative Resolution comes before the House and is subject to what is, in effect, a Second Reading discussion only. There is no opportunity whatever for detailed discussion, there is no opportunity for any Amendment, and there are, of course, no Committee proceedings. What happens is that it goes through Parliament without the people in the country affected realising what is happening until it is too late. It goes through Parliament without them and their associations being able to exercise the sort of pressure which in the course on this Bill, has been so effectively exercised on some hon. Members opposite …
Then he went on to say in even stronger language:
There is no indication of that in the language of the subsection, and I call both the subsection itself and the use which it is proposed to be made of it in connection with the fifteen months' concession an abuse of the power of the Ministry as against Parliament, an abuse of the power of the Government as against the country and an inroad into the liberties of the people in a matter which, I repeat, vitally and directly concerns them. I hope and pray that no Labour Government will ever sink to depths of oppression and duplicity which this Clause and the use of it represents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee A, 26th February, 1957; c. 959–60.]
Having said that, and remembering the struggles which took place in those days, I was appalled to find that when this Bill came before the House this Clause 11(3) was still there. While it has admittedly been modified and there are now some safeguards, I think it is still a thoroughly bad Clause, together with Clause 4.
Personally, I do not like this idea of either decontrol or what is called re-control, of sweeping decontrol or sweeping recontrol by order or regulation. I believe that if it is ever administered by the right hon. Gentleman it will be administered at any rate humanely and at the proper time, but I would suggest to him that it is leaving an instrument in the hands of his successor, of another Minister, who may not be so humane. We may then be saddled with the responsibility of this sort of regulation.
8.15 p.m.
No one yet knows precisely what is going to be the effect of these provisions and what will be the basis of the Government Clause. In a sense we are

stepping into the dark. It may be that in some areas there will be substantial increases of rent above the controlled rate and I am sure the people who sent us here did not vote for substantial increases in those rents.
That is why I am opposed to this ceiling, which is, I think, an inadequate ceiling, of limiting the increase of rents by 15 per cent. per annum. I suggest that one total increase of 15 per cent. is sufficient to cover the situation and I still hope the Minister will be prepared to agree to that. Remember creeping recontrol goes on. One still gets a large number of houses every year where a new tenant comes in and the full rent of the regulated tenancy fails. I believe there is no case whatsoever for allowing either this Minister or some other Minister in the future to introduce orders or regulations which are going to allow an increase of 15 per cent. per annum.
In certain cases the rent may be doubled, may be increased by 30s. or £2. I do not think there is any case for that. I do not think any question of balance between the landlord and tenant justifies that. In the Amendment which I have put down I propose that there should be one ceiling only and that should be 15 per cent. and the rent should go no higher. My Amendment is on the Order Paper and I hope the Minister is going to look at it, even at this late stage.

Mr. Carlisle: It is clear that if one of the intentions of the Minister in bringing in this new Clause was to placate his own hon. Friends on the Committee which was considering the Rent Bill he has failed judging by the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman). It is quite right, as the hon. Gentleman said, that this is a change which is basically one of form rather than of substance, so far as section 11(3) of the Rent Act was concerned. Although it may be that the Minister can now claim that he has deleted a further part of the 1957 Rent Act it is quite clear that these new sections, to a large degree, merely reinstate it in similar words in this new Bill.
What I am perturbed about in this new Clause is subsection 6. I am particularly opposed to the remarks made by the hon. Member the Member for Aston, in the


Amendment which is down in his name, in which he proposes to limit still further the limitations already put in subsection (6) of this new Clause.
If the Clause were to be carried, containing as it does the proposed subsection (6), and if, in particular, the Amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Aston were to be carried, there would in future be three different types of rents for controlled properties. This seems to me to be nonsense. There would be those rents which remained controlled under the 1957 Act which would be at the rate of twice the 1956 gross rateable value; there would be the fair rents of regulated tenancies paid under the Bill; and there would be a third group of people who would presumably pay the controlled rent plus 15 per cent. If the Minister succeeds in carrying his new Clause, and if the Amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Aston failed, it would be 15 per cent. a year until the new fair rent limit was reached.
I wish particularly to address my remarks to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aston. If it were passed, there would be permanently three bases on which the rent could be charged. The Minister has said on many occasions that he is anxious to be fair to the landlord and to the tenant. It clearly cannot be fair to the landlord, or I believe in the interests of the tenant, to introduce a proposal in the Bill which would artificially limit the rent at what is conceded to be well below the fair rent for the premises in question.
We know that the rent limit of the controlled tenancies set in 1958 is already out of date. I think that that is accepted by hon. Members on both sides. To take a simple means by which that can be tested, we know that the rent limit under the 1957 Act on controlled tenancies was based on twice the gross rateable value, that since then there has been a rerating of those premises and that on average the rateable value has increased 2·8 times for each of those premises. The rating officer has rerated those premises at his assessment of the present day rent which would be obtained for those houses at a price higher than the rent fixed under the 1957 Act. One can say that the rating officer, by means of the rerating which has occurred, has assessed what

would be the rent at higher than the rent capable of being charged. That is evidence that those rateable values are already out of date.
Secondly, if the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aston were to be carried those rentals will become steadily more out of date as each year passes. They are already eight years old. There is no doubt that the rip-roaring inflation which we have under this Government is reducing still further the value of money. Therefore, these rents become steadily and more rapidly out of date.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say how the productivity of the landlord has increased over this period which warrants him having any increase in rent at all.

Mr. Carlisle: The justification for an increase in rent is that the landlord should have what is on current day values a fair return on the money invested in the house and—I repeat that I believe that this is in the interests of the tenant—a fair amount with which to carry out repairs and to keep the house in a proper condition.
May I refer to two further figures which, I believe, show conclusively that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aston would limit at a wholly false amount the existing rentals for houses which came out of control. Since 1958 the average price of building materials has risen by 15 per cent. Since 1958 the average earnings of construction workers in the building industry have increased by 45 per cent. With the inflation which is occurring at the moment, costs such as these are rising rapidly.
The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) said in Committee that the controlled rent should be about one-sixth of the fair rent. I did not accept that for a moment, but what is clear is that it is much less than 15 per cent. on top of the controlled rent.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the average earnings of building workers are largely related to increased productivity and are based on production schemes which, in the main, do not apply to property repairs? Surely this is a very important point in relation to the repairs done by landlords.

Mr. Carlisle: I accept that point, but I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the cost of repairs and of the wage element in repairs have increased considerably since 1958.
If the new Clause and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aston were to be passed, we should have at a very early date what the Minister has deplored—people paying different rents for similar premises. As the hon. Member for Aston said, this new Clause, or even his Amendment, would not remove creeping recontrol. Therefore, we should have some people living in controlled houses, some people living in houses with a rateable value of, say, £29 who are paying a fair rent because of creeping recontrol, and some people paying the old controlled rent plus 15 per cent. as a once-for-all increase because the Minister had made an order under the nevi Clause. That is a further disadvantage of the Amendment proposed to the new Clause.
Secondly, this proposal would not enable the landlord to do the necessary repairs to keep the houses in a satisfactory state of repair. Thirdly, I believe that it would encourage still further the owner, when he had the opportunity, to sell rather than to relet.
The Minister, in a speech which he made in Leeds in January this year, said:
If you are going to give high quality houses, people have got to get used to higher rents".
That is a statement of fact with which many of us on both sides of the House would agree as being not only to the advantage of the landlord, but clearly to the advantage of the tenant.
The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Aston, by uneconomically limiting the rent of houses which at a later stage might be moved out of control by the Minister, would prohibit the possibility of higher quality housing by prohibiting the ability of the landlord to receive a fair rent from the tenant.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The Bill contains some excellent provisions. It is a serious attempt to undo the damage done by the Conservative Rent Act of 1957. The Clause, however, is a disastrous mistake. I want this to

be a great Bill. It is exactly 50 years after the 1915 Act, which introduced rent restriction and made housing history. I want this Bill similarly to make housing history. It will not do it if this weakness remains.
8.30 p.m.
I am in favour of rigid rents. I would say that the maximum should be the 1957 controlled rents, which were roughly a 60 per cent. increase for most landlords. I strongly differ from the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), who said that the present maxima were out of date. They are out of date because of the pressure of the market, because there is such a demand for housing. In the situation of shortage that exists most landlords will naturally exploit that shortage. That explains why the valuations have gone up.

Mr. Christopher Chataway: Does that mean that the hon. Member would not make any adjustment for inflation?

Mr. Allaun: I would be very generous to the landlords. I would give them a 15 per cent. once-and-for-all increase, as my hon. Friend suggests, to cover the depreciation of the £. If I regarded Clause 22 as satisfactory, I should not worry about the new Clause, but Clause 22 is so vague that no right hon. or hon. Member this evening knows exactly what kinds of rents the tribunals will fix. My fear is that loopholes will be found in Clause 22, as not all but some landlords and their lawyers found a loophole in the Protection from Eviction Act which was passed six months ago. I do not want the landlords to be over-compensated in the way in which it has been suggested that the steel owners might be.
I do not think that the public have quite realised the significance of the new Clause. I wish to quote a case, the details of which have been provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), of a row of houses in his constituency—although they might be in any industrial area—two up, two down without a bath, people sharing an outside lavatory, in my view the kind of houses on which the landlord should not be able to raise rents at all. However, he is allowed to do so under the Rent Act. The tenants pay 28s. a week plus rates, which is more than the property is worth.
Next door to the first house is a house which has been affected by creeping decontrol and the landlord has charged 80s. plus rates. This actual case goes before the rent tribunal. Nobody here this evening know what rent the tribunal will fix for that house. My hope would be that the tribunal would say, "This is an exorbitant rent for such a house and we will reduce it." Nobody knows by how much the tribunal would reduce the rent. Let us suppose, however, that it knocks off £1 and brings down the rent to 60s. The tenant is very satisfied.
When, however, the tribunals have dealt with these cases of decontrolled rents, they have then to proceed to deal with the cases of controlled rents. The tribunal, therefore, says to the tenant of No. 1, "We are now considering your rent. As your house is identical in every way with the house next door, we must obviously fix an identical rent." So the tenant's rent will go up from 28s. to 60s. Hon. Members opposite want it to go up in one fell swoop. They cannot wait; their tongues are hanging out in anticipation. I hope, therefore—and I am sure—that their Amendment will not be carried.
I also agree with my hon. Friend that no Labour Government would do such a thing, but we live in a democracy and there is no guarantee that a Labour Government will continue in office for ever. If the landlords' party opposite were returned to power, I would not trust hon. Gentlemen opposite to refrain from taking this action, and I do not want to put a weapon in their hands. Any Government which deregulated in this way and raised controlled rents would be committing political suicide, because this question is dynamite as it affects so many people.
It is true that the Minister has delayed the agony by saying that there shall not be an increase of more than 15 per cent. in any one year. If it can be so described, this is death by a thousand cuts, although it will probably take only seven years to reach 100 per cent. increase in rents. Furthermore, it is not restricted to that increase. There might well be a 200 per cent. increase in present controlled rents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) tabled an Amendment, which has not been called, to provide that the increase should not be

more than 3½ per cent. per annum, which in my view is plenty. I can appreciate the reason why my hon. Friend has suggested that figure. It has a familiar connotation. Why should we give an increase of 15 per cent. per annum to men who do no work at all, and yet restrict to 3½ per cent. the increase which is permitted to trade unions which represent men who work very hard indeed?

Mr. Carlisle: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that, under the prices and incomes policy, if there is an application for a wage increase from unions which have not put in an increase since 1957, they should still be limited to an increase of 3½ per cent.?

Mr. Allaun: The difference is that they do no work at all.

Mr. Rose: The difference may also be that the initial cost of these houses has been paid for many times over in many cases.

Mr. Allaun: I was going to make that point. We are dealing with very old houses, and the fact is that 85 per cent. of all houses to rent were built before 1914. They are at least 51 years old, and many of them are more than 100 years old.
Workers will say, "If you are going to allow landlords to raise controlled rents for doing nothing, do you seriously suggest that we should restrict our wage claims?". I am opposed to any increase in controlled rents. What are the arguments which have been adduced from the benches opposite in support of this proposal? They say, first, that higher rents are needed to carry out repairs, but, unfortunately, there is no guarantee in the Bill that repairs will be done. In 1957 landlords were given a 60 per cent. increase, presumably to allow them to carry out repairs, but with some honourable exceptions they did not carry out any repairs at all. They just pocketed the increase. It might interest the House to know that there was an increase of £200 million a year in net rent incomes between 1957 and 1961 after paying for repairs.
There is no guarantee in the Clause that improvements will be carried out. I have here a letter from an engineering worker in the Manchester and Salford district who has just been hit by the fact


that his rent is likely to be increased under this Clause. He says:
I am a tenant of one of the controlled properties mentioned, and the owner, like so many others as you well know, point blank refuses to apply for improvement grants. Are we, therefore to pay a rent increase … to people who refuse to bring their property up to reasonable standards, which means baths and inside lavatories? … I am sure you will agree that there should be no increase where there is no bath or inside toilet, otherwise terrific wage demands will be the result. Of course, it may be that the Bill will make these safeguards a condition. In that case the public relations department of the Housing Ministry is at fault for releasing only one side of the information.
It is not the public relations department that is at fault; the truth is that there is no insistence on the installation of lavatories or hot water before there can be rent increases of controlled houses.
The second argument adduced in favour of raising controlled rents is that if we do not give the landlords a large increase in their rents they will not let the houses; they will sell them. They will sell them in any case, as the Milner Holland figures show. Indeed, if we grant an increase in rents it means that we are granting an increase in selling price, because if rents are allowed to rise the capital value of the property will similarly increase. If landlords do sell their houses it will be a good thing, especially if municipalities taken them over. Two years ago the Prime Minister, speaking in Leeds, said that housing was not a proper field for private profit-making.
In Committee the Minister said that in the great conurbations there could be no question of this being done very speedily. He explained that there were large numbers of decontrolled cases to deal with before the rent tribunals got round to controlled cases. In the big conurbations there will surely have to be more than one rent tribunal. If this is not to be the case it means that there will be a tremendous delay before the tribunals deal with some of the high decontrolled rents—and I want those tribunals to get on to that job very quickly.
Why not leave controlled tenants well alone? They are a shrinking number in any case, because creeping decontrol is reducing their numbers. It is bad enough for a family going to a new house to have to pay a higher rent, but at

least they go there voluntarily—I agree that it is not entirely voluntarily, because they have a beggar's choice owing to the fact that the market has risen and they have to pay. It is worse for people to have to pay an increased rent for the house in which they live. There is a distinction in this case, because this will be entirely involuntary. Last October the electorate chose a Government in the belief that they would keep rents down. We must not increase rents, especially for controlled tenants.
The Conservative Rent Act of 1957 is generally known among millions of our electorate as the landlords' charter. I appeal to the Minister to redress the balance by improving the Bill.

8.45 p.m

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member began his speech with a great fallacy and ended it with another. This is the first time that I have heard anybody suggest that the great housing charter arose from the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Act of 1915 came into force purely as an emergency measure in time of war, was ill-conceived and ill-drafted and has been described by every judge in almost every case who has had to construe it as a thoroughly bad Act, with no other purpose than that of an emergency measure in time of war, for which it could be forgiven.
The hon. Member is equally wrong in suggesting that the 1957 Act was ever drafted as a "landlords' charter", or that anyone has ever so regarded it. This is quite untrue. I speak as one who did not particularly like that Act and strongly opposed certain parts of it.
I wanted to take up one or two points mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman). I was, I think, the first Member in the House to suggest, some years ago, that we should have a measure of rent control, but that the difficulty was that it was required only in certain parts of the country. I therefore advocated then, and consistently, within my own party and publicly, that we needed this control by areas.
Last year, I was pressing on the then Government and I have since, and I would wish to press on the present


Government, that the way in which we could get some form of fair rent control in this country is by looking at it area by area and recognising that circumstances differ immensely in different areas, not only within the metropolis, but within the cities and certainly in the provinces. The only effective way by which we can deal with this problem is to treat it as a matter for area control.
Therefore, in so far as this Clause is one of several which deal with the question of the Minister taking powers for area control, I am for it 100 per cent. However, at some stage—I do not ask him to do it on this Clause—I hope that the Minister will give some indication before the end of the Report stage as to what are the broad principles—I do not want to tie him down to detail—which he will apply in considering area control.
When I was fighting as a rent rebel with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) with regard then to the question of rent control and its necessity in the cities and conurbations, we pointed out, and repeat now, that certain areas of the country require no rent control or Rent Act at all. My own constituency is one of them. Although I favour a strong rent control in certain areas of London, Liverpool and elsewhere, we do not need it at all in Thanet. No more did we need it in 1957, when I was arguing very strongly in favour of there being some rent control.
Therefore, I hope that, either on this Clause or on another, the Minister will tell us whether he proposes to bring these areas under control throughout the country, and, if not, what general principles he has in mind. Will we, as Members of Parliament, be able to make representations to him on behalf of given areas? For example, would the representatives of the County of Kent be able to come forward, representing local authorities in the area, to say, "We do not think that this is necessary for the whole of Kent?". Would that be so with regard to particular cities?
The Minister may prefer to deal with this on another occasion. There are several others on which it arises. I hope that we can get some explanation, in regard to subsection (3) in this Clause and other parts of the Bill, of the policy

of Her Majesty's Government in the implementation of what I can loosely call area control.
The great mistake which the hon. Member for Aston made in his speech was that he talked about the fact—he was quite right—that the country had not fully appreciated that the Clause to some extent proceeds to deal with the question of the old controlled statutory tenancies and the old controlled rents and makes provision in subsection (6) for a measure of increases to bring them into line with regulated rents under the new Act.
Of course, he said, there will be creeping decontrol. That is not so. He is quite wrong there. The purpose of this Clause is to retain the old ones under control, but convert them into the regulated rent. That is important because the policy of the Conservative Party was—and, so far as I know, still is—on the old basis, to leave the controlled rents alone for statutory tenants, on the basis that by the process of creeping decontrol they would gradually vanish and allow free rents above the fixed amounts.
The new Clause aims to turn all the old statutory rents, by a gradual process of evolution, into regulated rents. It has already been propounded by the Minister as his policy that we shall have control of unfurnished rentals throughout the country—up to £400 a year in London and somewhat less outside—and that they shall all be subject to rent control with prevention from eviction.
We will have an opportunity to debate the former and to decide whether the right hon. Gentleman's tests and definitions are sufficiently comprehensive to decide what the rentals shall be. Nevertheless, I hope that he is aware that we cannot have a whole series of different types of contractual and non-contractual tenancies. The right hon. Gentleman must at least be right in saying that if we are to provide a fair rent in the terms of a regulated rent—and, after all, the Minister is setting up all the paraphernalia which I do not believe is necessary, with rent officers, assessment committees, and so on; all of that could have been avoided, although we will discuss that later—then, if hon. Gentlemen opposite accept that that will be a fair rental, I do not see how they can also contend that those who will be paying controlled


rental should not in due course, also be asked to pay a fair rental.
This is a somewhat complicated matter and I come to the heart of it and mean no offence when I say that this part of the argument is really the "left" side of the argument. It must be, for it is stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite that in due course it must be agreed that a fair and proper rental should be paid, although I have not heard any criticism of the criterion as to how that fair rent should be assessed.
The only remaining question is by what degree these people will be asked to pay it. If 15 per cent. is suggested as being too high over six or 12 months, it might be said that it should be 5 per cent. or 10 per cent.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Why not 3½ per cent.?

Mr. Rees-Davies: Let us assume that it is 5 per cent. It cannot be fair to keep somebody from the ultimate fair rental if there would have to be a 100 per cent. increase because that would entail waiting 20 years; that is, 5 per cent. for 20 years. We must, therefore, be reasonable about this.
Subsection (6) of the new Clause is obscure, to say the least. I wish it were phrased in understandable language. I have had 20 years' experience of rent legislation, but subsection (6) is unintelligible to me. It refers to 15 per cent. and I should have thought that it would have been good enough merely to say, "A 15 per cent. increase will be permitted in any one year up to the fair rental fixed"—and that rental would be fixed by the provision dealing with assessments. Why not, for a start, change the wording of the subsection to make it more intelligible?
Do not the Government want a reasonable percentage to be included to bring it up to a fair rental? I do not vouchsafe an opinion as to what it should be, but certainly the aim should be to bring the controlled rental up to the regulated fair rent within a reasonable period of time—say, about two years in ordinary cases.
Subsection (4) of the new Clause refers to transitional provisions and states:
An order under this section may contain such transitional provisions as appear to the Minister to be desirable.

If we do not know what the policy is to be on new Clause No. 3, we will be completely in the dark as to how this is to be achieved. If this is meant to be purely a machinery Clause and nothing else, I would like that made plain, but they ought to know what is the precise manner in which it is envisaged this will take effect.
Taking a normal case of a rent of 21s. to 25s. a week, let us say that it is decided by a tribunal that the rent in the area is reasonably to be fixed at 35s. a week, resulting in an increase of 10s. to 15s. a week on a £1 rent, what reasonable period should be set to enable the controlled rent to come up to the fair rent which has been fixed? As the Clause is liable to be looked at in another place, I am inviting the right hon. Gentleman to look at subsection (6) and consider whether it can be made intelligible to the general public, because it is not intelligible to my hon. Friends and myself.
We may not have the intelligence of the general public, but we have to tell the general public what we take it to mean. I take it to mean something different. I do not take it to mean that there could be a 15 per cent. every year for the next three years.

Mr. Crossman: That is quite right.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am right?

Mr. Crossman: Yes.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) takes it to mean, but I am anxious to hear that it shall not only mean what we take it to mean, but that the public shall understand it to mean what they read it to mean.

Mr. Crossman: What the Clause means is that you should not be allowed to increase the rent by more than 15 per cent. of the controlled rent. It is not a geometric progression, but an arithmetical progression.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Taking 15 per cent. of the controlled rent, is that once for all? As I understand, it is 15 per cent. of the controlled rent, but you can do that annually.

Mr. Crossman: As the hon. Gentleman says, the aim of the Clause is to


prevent a sudden bumping up of rents. One is allowed to move from one point to the other by not more than 15 per cent. of the controlled rent each year, so that one would take between six and six and a half years to double the controlled rent it that were necessary, two years if only 30 per cent. were necessary, three years if 45 per cent., and so on. I am told by my legal advisers that this is language which to really trained legal minds is crystal clear.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The right hon. Gentleman's reply illustrates very clearly what the argument is about on the comments which have already been made and which drove my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) to submit his Amendment, which I want to support. I wish also to comment on what was said by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). A number of hon. Members opposite have spoken of the poverty of landlords and property-owning companies and have said that these people must have an annual rent increase of no less than 15 per cent. in order to balance their books.
In London, we are concerned about a number of property-owning companies, particularly those which own the type of property which we are discussing. I obtained some figures about one company. In 1957, the same year as the infamous Rent Act, the company's profit was £15,525. The profits had risen in 1964 to £269,259. The ordinary dividend has increased in this way between 1957 and 1964 without any new capital being added. I suggest that we need not have too much sympathy with or shed too many tears over this sort of company.

Mr. Webster: Would the hon. Member in fairness tell us the ordinary dividend of that company 15 years previously? He will find it very similar to that which he quoted.

Mr. Atkinson: You are asking for figures.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. The hon. Member must speak through the Chair. He must address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Atkinson: I am sorry, Dr. King. I am merely submitting that some property-owning companies which own the type of property which we are discussing and which will be affected by the Bill have not suffered as much poverty as hon. Members opposite suggest. Companies have had bonus shares over the period 1957–63 and the value of a £100 shareholding has increased to £660 today. That shows that there is some profit in this kind of property even though I admit that the whole of the property owned by the company is not controlled but includes a large lump of decontrolled property from which it has earned its profits.

Mr. Webster: The hon. Member confused me with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I am flattered. He quoted the figure of profits in 1957. Would he quote the figure of profits fifteen years earlier and thirty years earlier. He will find that the company has been expanding over the whole period.

Mr. Atkinson: I am sorry but I cannot answer that question. I have not figures going back 50 years. I have taken a period between 1957 and the present day.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said that to make sense rent control should be regionalised. This is the only fair basis on which we can get a fair method of assessing rents throughout the country. One of the strongest features of the Bill is that the Minister can introduce some degree of regionalisation because of the terms of reference for the chairmen of the panels to be set up by the Minister. The terms of reference will give a built-in regionalisation to the whole rent structure. We recognise that it is difficult to talk in terms of fair rents, which is the subject of this argument. I recognise that we cannot argue whether there should be one increase of 15 per cent. and no more or continual increases of 15 per cent. unless we relate the argument to the whole question of fair rents and to how much the increase will mean in terms of the householder.
That involves questions of regional or geographical differences, but my concern is with London, and with North London in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) gave some very graphic examples of how this suggested increase could affect some


tenants, in north London, and I want to quote two examples in north London. In one case a controlled house has a rent of 28s. 6d. a week. The house has no bath, but it has six rooms. The National Assistance Board pays the rent in both cases and therefore has knowledge of the rents, and it is the National Assistance figures that I quote. In the other case the National Assistance people are helping the tenants to pay a decontrolled rent of £5 2s. 6d. The difference between the two rents is £3 14s.
In the same terrace are houses of the same kind—six rooms but no bath—which are sub-divided to accommodate two families, one upstairs and one downstairs. In the decontrolled house the total rents amount to £7 15s. a week, plus rates. The total rents in the controlled house are £3 2s. per week, plus rates. The difference there is £4 13s. a week—

Mr. Frank Allaun: Scandalous.

Mr. Atkinson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East says, this is a scandalous situation, but one which we must look at when deciding whether to have a 15 per cent. increase once for all or a continuous rent rise over many years. I am pointing to the dilemma in which rent assessment committees will be placed when they have to assess a fair rent.
In this same street—Cadoxton Avenue, Tottenham—where I found these examples, I know that the price for the same sort of house two years ago was £3,500 with vacant possession. The expectancy of life of the property is about 25 years. The investor looking for a return on his investment of £3,500 knows that he can sub-divide the house top and bottom and let the property to two families. Whichever way we look at the matter, unless the rent assessment committee is to confiscate part of that person's capital or devalue the property it must accept that the basis for establishing a fair rent must be the £3,500 paid for that kind of house. If that is so, the lawyers and property assessors, and the like, with whom I have discussed this problem advised me that the fair rent, with all the circumstances taken into consideration, must be about £6 15s. a week.
If that is to be the outcome of that kind of assessment, we must relate such an analysis to the controlled tenancy of a similar kind of property—

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is £3,500 the vacant possession value? If it is, surely it takes into account the scarcity of houses, which is the very thing that is being wiped out by the fair-rent provisions.

Mr. Atkinson: Precisely, that is the whole point. This kind of property is fetching such exorbitant prices because of scarcity value. This situation in London in times of scarcity and these sort of prices are now quite common. A rent assessment committee, assessing what the investor can expect in return for that kind of investment, can either confiscate the property or recognise the price and fix the rent on the value.

Mr. Charles Doughty: The hon. Member's figures, which I am following with great interest, are based on an entirely wrong assumption. A house might fetch that price because someone wants it for himself, but that is not the investor's price for a house to be let to someone else.

Mr. Atkinson: The hon. and learned Member is quite wrong and does not understand the position in London housing. People will pay this price because then they will become owner-occupiers of the property and can make such a house a viable proposition by letting part of it. That is the only way in which people can find reasonably suitable accommodation when they know that, although they are paying that price for an investment, they can recoup some of the capital by letting off the other part of the house. This provides a method of establishing a fair rent for that kind of property. The terms of reference which presidents of panels will be handing out to various rent assessment committees will say that there must be continuity of assessments throughout London and that there must be a relationship between properties of a similar kind irrespective of scarcity values.

Mr. Crossman: I want the House to be certain that what my hon. Friend is saying bears no relation to the truth. No such instruction is the intention, and it is most misleading to suggest it. If my hon.


Friend had listened to the Committee stage he would have known that we were discussing precisely this problem and that the whole purpose of Clause 22 is to eliminate scarcity value by fixing fair rents. It is most misleading to say that everything said in Committee will be disregarded by the president of the London panel.

Mr. Atkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that explanation. If that is so it is extremely welcome. I welcome this, but a lot of people will lose a lot of money on investments they have made over the years since 1957. If that is so, I am happy tonight. The Minister has made my year; in fact he has justified our results in the last election. Those people will lose a lot of money, but, nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East pointed out, if there is a relationship between similar houses in the same street there must be some extortionate increases on present controlled tenants. Whatever we say about decontrolled tenancies and prices which landlords have paid for property, this must of necessity bring about a substantial reduction, but it will be a rent far above that paid by the tenant in controlled property.
Because these differences exist in London and are so enormous, to say that we can perpetuate a system of 15 per cent. per year ad infinitum until the total is reached which is considered to be a fair rent is too much in the present situation. I therefore support the points made by by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston in suggesting that in those circumstances it is fair that in regard to controlled tenancies there should be only one increase of 15 per cent., which is an adequate adjustment taking into consideration increases, depreciation and so on over the recent years.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: In general, I welcome the new Clause. It is possible that I might welcome it more if I was quite certain that I understood subsection (6). The Minister has assured the House that it is crystal clear to him.

Mr. Crossman: No. What I said was that I was assured as a layman that to a lawyer with a really trained mind these

somewhat difficult words are crystal clear. They are not clear to me, but I am told that that is what they mean. I have interpreted them as one layman to other laymen.

Mr. Brooke: I was going to suggest to the House that that was the true position. But, after all, the Minister must take responsibility. If he says that it is crystal clear to somebody responsible, it must surely be constitutionally crystal clear to him, and we all envy him.
I welcome the Minister's approach here. I have long thought, in the light of experience, that the original Rent Bill of 1956, was slanted too much in the direction of complete decontrol and not sufficiently in favour of raising controlled rents to a sensible level. I say "a sensible level" so as not to confuse the issue further by bringing in the word "fair", which is a controversial word in the context of the Bill. I have much sympathy with the Minister, because I went through the same kind of experience in Standing Committee as he is going through this evening. At that time I was assured by some of his hon. Friends that twice gross value was an entirely extortionate rent and that it was unforgivable that a Tory Government should be authorising landlords to raise rents to such a height as twice gross value.
Most of us then knew—I think we all know by now—that a house cannot be kept in proper condition on a rent of twice the 1939 gross value. At that time cost of repairs and maintenance was over 3½ times the 1939 cost. Now it must be well over four times. If I understand the Clause aright, it seems to me in general a sensible step towards lifting the twice gross value figure up to what is described in the Bill as a fair rent. I reserve all my doubts about the possibility of putting a fair interpretation on the word "fair". We shall see what happens.
I note that some of those who, eight years ago, argued that twice gross value was an extortionate rent for a Government to authorise are now saying in their Amendments that they think that 2·3 times 1939 gross value would be acceptable. The Minister is making a wiser approach than theirs. It was a disappointment to me that in the Bill as it was originally published there seemed to


be no attempt to tackle in a systematic and thoughtful way the problem of the house controlled at twice the 1939 gross value. I did not serve on the Standing Committee, but it is clear to me that some of these problems were brought home to the Government in Committee.
I consider that new Clauses Nos. 3 and 4 are a considerable improvement on Clause 15. My hope is that the Minister will have the courage to use his powers over those large parts of England and Wales where it would be possible very quickly to make an Order enabling the existing controlled rents to be brought up to regulated rents.
My chief doubt about the Clause is the wording of subsection (6). I am most grateful to the Minister for telling us what it means, or telling us what he is advised that it means, but I should be even more grateful if he could get some of his right hon. Friends in another place to suggest Amendments which would make it clear not only to the lawyers but to him and to me that the Clause really does mean what he is advised that it means.

Mr. Heffer: I want to deal with the main argument which we should be considering. It seems to me that we have strayed a little from the issues involved. I well understand that the essence of the argument revolves round the question of the establishment by rent officers or rent assessment committees of what a fair rent means. It could be argued that we are possibly talking about the wrong Clause and that we ought to be discussing whether or not there should be rent officers or rent assessment committees, but we are talking about the establishment of a fair rent. Examples have been given of a controlled tenant paying 25s. a week and a decontrolled tenant, living in precisely the same kind of property, paying £4 a week.
We know that there was an increase in the rent of controlled tenancies at the time of the passing of the 1957 Rent Act. In a great many cases this increase varied from 30 per cent. to 60 per cent. I realise that the argument now is whether we have complete confidence that rent officers and rent assessment committees will fix all rents at a reasonable level. If they do, there can be no argument that the rent of existing controlled

tenancies should be increased when they come regulated tenancies, but the question is what will be a fair rent to fix. No one knows. It seems to me that we should determine in some way or another that the fair rent will be on the basis of a limitation set within the Bill. The limitation which I think is more than fair is a 15 per cent. once-for-all increase.
There are many people living in controlled tenancies at the moment who even now, in my estimation and that of my hon. Friends, are paying high and exorbitant rents which they ought not to be paying, and certainly not the fantastic rents which people are paying for comparable decontrolled tenancies. Our fear is that there will be a wholesale increase in rents by 15 per cent. per year until the level is reached. This is why we urge our right hon. Friends to look again at this question.
I plead with them to consider seriously what has been said by their hon. Friends who are stressing this matter. We understood, and it was clearly laid down in the Labour Party manifesto, that we would establish rent tribunals and rent assessment committees, but the manifesto did not indicate anywhere that there would be any wholesale increase in the rent of controlled tenancies. We have to look at this again and I appeal to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to look at this matter and seriously consider the arguments which have been put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) and Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).

Mr. Doughty: I am sorry I was not here for the earlier part of the discussion on this new Clause, but it seems from what I have heard that hon. Members opposite have misconceived a very important part of rent restriction legislation, and I include this Bill, ever since and even before the First World War. At least after the First World War there were 40 per cent. increases of rent allowed following the fall in the value of the £ to deal with the increase in the cost of repairs, which nearly always in those cases fell upon the landlord. It may be said that this was insufficient or too much, but it was a sum which was allowed. When the new restrictions came,


after the Second World War, no Government succeeded in dealing with the fall in the value of the £ and the increase in the cost of repairs. That was one of the gravest criticisms of the continuation of the Rent Acts after the Second World War. I do not wish to make any political capital out of this at all. It meant that landlords, small people, perhaps owning one house or half a house, or big property companies, could not keep their property in order. They saw properties going down and the tenants did not like to complain because they knew they were paying small rents and the landlords could not repair because they had not the money to do so.

Mr. Orme: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman stating a fallacy? Did not his own party introduce the 1954 Rent Act to give an increase to landlords who did repairs and the landlords failed to come forward and do repairs? Following that was the 1957 Act.

Mr. Doughty: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman should try to introduce political questions into this. If he wishes to do so I will tell him straight away it was the 1945–51 Labour Government who failed to deal with the problem of the fall in the value of money in proportion to the rates. That argument is unanswerable, but I did not wish to introduce too much political bias into this and I had not mentioned that. That was the position certainly until 1957, when the houses were falling down and when, apart from modernisation, no repairs were being carried out. Whatever be the merits or demerits of this Bill, the Minister has tried to bring into line with modern needs the rents that should be paid in respect of the various properties.
I was not here, unfortunately, but I am told that this Amendment was brought in by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman). I remember the buildings in Aston until 1950 when I fought a by-election there. They need repairing and they will not be repaired until a fair rent is paid for the properties in that district. The only way in which it can be done is for a fair rent to be charged in respect of all properties, be they in Aston or north London.
At a time when the prosperity of the country is good, when wages are high

and employment is full, this is not the time to start saying, "Let this house fall down; I am getting it for 28s. a week inclusive of rates because before the First and Second World Wars the tenant was only paying that. Never mind the landlord or how much he is losing, never mind if the house is falling down, never mind the lack of modernisation; if we can get away with small rents then leave us alone."
That is not an argument which is right or sound from the housing point of view or from the conurbation point of view, be it in London, Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I am trying to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. I wish that he would explain the relationship between increased rents and repairs. In my experience in Central London there is no connection between the imposition of higher rents and the more conscientious carrying out of repairs. In fact, the contrary has happened as a result of the Rent Act, 1957.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Doughty: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for that question. In nearly every case the liability for repairs falls on the landlord. It is no good serving a sanitary notice or schedule of repairs on the landlord if he has not the money from the rent to cover the cost. In central London the landlords would wish to keep their property in order if they had a sufficient income from the rent.

Mrs. Jeger: indicated dissent

Mr. Doughty: The hon. Lady shakes her head. I do not know which constituency she represents, but, be it in north London or anywhere else, the property will always be repaired, as it was in the past, if enough money is forthcoming. The failure over many years has been that under the Rent Acts rents were not increased in keeping with the times. It is right that rents should be stepped up gradually year by year so that the blow falls more reasonably on the tenant. But a landlord is entitled to receive a fair return on his capital so that he is in a position to carry out the obligation to keep his property in repair.
Whether the Bill is wise or necessary over the whole country is an entirely separate question and I should be out of


order if I were to attempt to deal with it now. However, this is, broadly speaking, a wise Clause to introduce in the Bill. I am sure that this is the only method which can be used, and I am glad to see that this is the first time since the Second World War that this problem has been tackled in a Rent Bill.

Mr. Crossman: The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said that this was a wise new Clause. Whether it is wise or not, it is an essential Clause, because it is the hinge on which the whole Bill works. We are having to work in stages. In the first stage we introduce regulation. The regulation will apply only to those people who were decontrolled tenants. Therefore, 800,000 people who were decontrolled tenants will be brought within the ambit of regulation. They will be the first to go to the rent officers and rent assessment committees. For purely administrative reasons it seemed to me essential that if we were not to block up the whole system of tribunals we should let those whose need was greatest come first. Therefore, these 800,000 people must come first.
I want to make it clear that how soon we can move to the second stage, where the controlled tenant moves into regulation, depends on something which none of us knows, which is the degree of contentment, or discontent, of tenants. If the Milner Holland calculation is correct, and if 65 or 70 per cent. of tenants are perfectly content with their rent, the process will not take so long. If there are tenants, as some of my hon. Friends believe, who are much more discontented, there will be more cases to decide and, therefore, a longer period in which the controlled tenant will remain under his present condition of statutory security with his rent fixed and frozen at this level, for part of the new Clause ensures that during the first period of rent regulation the conditions of controlled tenants remain precisely as they are.
I had better make absolutely clear again how the Clause is to be interpreted. The right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) and I, with our laymen's attitude, should make sure that we agree on its interpretation. The freeze is in subsection (5). After the freeze comes the Order area by area. Here

I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). I thought that it was essential to give us power to introduce the second stage, not nationally as a single unit, but area by area, for very obvious reasons.
Areas such as London, where some 300,000 people will be recontrolled, will have many months, if not years, of working over the recontrol. An area like Cornwall and Devon, which I have looked at as a possible sub-area, will have only 20,000 cases to be dealt with. Therefore, it seemed to me that areas where the problem is not acute—and this is a problem which is mainly acute in half a dozen conurbations—should be able to move forward at a different pace from an area which has an overwhelming problem. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It will be done regionally?"] Yes, it will be done regionally, area by area.
As to the size of area which I am thinking of for each panel, England would be divided into sixteen quite large areas—for example, West Midlands, East Midlands and Greater London. These big areas would be dealt with by one panel broken up into assessment committees to deal with the whole of the area. This will be done on a large scale to achieve the maximum uniformity of results.
The second stage, therefore, will be when we find that we have worked through an area and have reached the condition in which we can move. The controlled tenants then will be transferred into rent regulation by means of an affirmative Order. We have included this provision in the new Clause because it is essential for the House of Commons to be fully consulted in the process. Local Members of Parliament will have a right to understand the conditions and to decide whether they want to see this movement. The House will be able to decide.

Mrs. Jeger: Can my right hon. Friend explain why a poor old man living in Devonshire should have his rent put up before a poor old man who lives elsewhere?

Mr. Crossman: I am talking about the machinery of transfer. In reply to my hon. Friend, who I do not think has grasped the central principle of the Bill, I do not think that to move from rigid


rent control into rent regulation will be a disadvantage for all tenants. For many it will give them a mobility to escape from their present inadequate accommodation to better accommodation without threat of eviction. If I believed that rent regulation was in every way a disadvantage, I should not introduce it. On the contrary, I think that rent regulation, for the tenant as well as for the landlord, will produce great advantages. It will improve the chances of having a house repaired and improved in conditions which would be quite impossible under control.
Therefore, my first disagreement with some of my hon. Friends is that I am convinced that rent regulation, which we are introducing, is an enormous improvement on the rigid rent control which is part of the 1957 Act, to which some of my hon. Friends cling with tenacious pertinacity, which shows that sometimes even the Leftist wing has a deeply Conservative trend.

Mr. Peter Shore: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity, as he is in this generous mood, to make clear that the movement from rent control to a rent regulated sector will, in his view, in certain cases at least, lead to a reduction of rent as well as to an increase in rent?

Mr. Crossman: I believe that my hon. Friend was absent during the initial speech by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who made the position clear. It is not true that every time there will automatically be an increase of rent. It means moving to a position in which a rent fixed by a rent officer or rent assessment committee will be the tenant's rent. That level may be either above or below the level of the existing rent.
Nevertheless, it would be quite unrealistic to deny that this will imply change. A great many people are on controlled tenancies; their rents have been frozen and costs have risen steadily. Of course, there will be increases. That is why subsection (6) is introduced, because although there will be cases where rent regulation will mean a decrease, even in a controlled rent, in the broad number of cases my hon. Friends were

perfectly right to bring out into the open that there will be large numbers of controlled tenants who, when they see the work of the rent officer, will look at it with great anxiety. They will say, "What will that mean to me?". We have the situation already of two identical houses in a street, one of which is controlled and the other is decontrolled. As my hon. Friend said, the rent for one is 28s. while the rent for the other is £5. I would not have thought that my hon. Friends were prepared to perpetuate that situation. Surely nobody can defend such a state of affairs. My hon. Friends want to freeze the situation, with no change at all. If there are two identical houses, the rent of one being 28s. and of the other £5, surely we all agree that there is something wrong in justice with a system under which one tenant has to pay 28s. while the other has to pay £5 for precisely the same accommodation.
We have to find some way of deciding what these two identical houses are worth. I am assuming, of course, that they are identical houses in the same area and are not in different parts of the country where there are differences in value. Let us assume that these identical houses are side by side and that the rent of one is three times the rent of the other. The first job of the rent officers and the committees will be to decide objectively what should be the fair rent of those houses. I know that there are difficulties in this matter, but we can discuss those on a later Clause. All I am saying is that I hope my hon. Friends will come to the point of agreeing that somebody must decide what is a fair rent.
Once that decision has been made, rents which are above that figure will have to come down, and rents which are below it will have to go up. Those who believe that there is such a thing as a fair rent must admit the possibility of a rent going up to the fair level as well as of a rent coming down to that level. That is all that I am saying.
I do not want to spend a lot of time on this new Clause, because this is not the Clause which deals with the fixing of rent. Subsection (6), which has caused alarm among my hon. Friends, deals with the certainty that in a number of cases rents will have to rise. Some rents are


so low that they are bound to rise, because no fair-minded committee could decide that that level of rent for that quality of house was sufficient or fair.
Some of my hon. Friends believe in a rigid system of rent control. Some of them would have liked to relate it to gross value for rating. There is no formula for relating rents to gross value which anyone would accept as in any way realistic which would not automatically increase a large number of controlled rents. There is no way of doing this which would not automatically increase those rents. I notice that my hon. Friends were careful not to give us a formula for calculating what would happen. We have rejected the idea of relating rents to gross value, and we have come to a fair rent formula, and in this new Clause we are considering what precautions we can take to see that the transition from rigid controlled rent to flexible fair rent is carried out as smoothly as possible. That is all that the new Clause is about.
I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) who said that the real issue was whether we should have a 15 per cent. increase once and for all, or each year. The Clause says nothing about that. It deals with the position when the rent has been fixed. Let us assume that the rent of a house has been fixed at 30 per cent. above the present level.
9.45 p.m.
This subsection lays it down that if it has been fixed, and the present rent is 30 per cent. below the level of a fair rent, it shall take two years to raise it, and it shall not be raised all in one go. I would have found it difficult to believe that my hon. Friends would object to that. They could object to many other things. They might want a rigid formula. But to object to the humanity of saying that if there is to be an increase the blow shall be softened by being limited to a rise of 15 per cent. of the standard rent in each year seems strange to me. I would have thought that they would agree that this was a sensible thing to do.
Even those who have their doubts about the method of rent fixing which we are discussing—

Mr. Costain: I have been listening to what the right hon. Gentleman has said

with great care, and I do not want to cause arguments. When he says that there is no formula for linking a fair rent to the rateable value I accept it, but how does he expect the new rent officers, who do not possess the experience of valuation officers, to assess the fair rent?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me to deal with a different Clause. We are not dealing with rent fixing; we are dealing with the smoothing of the transition from controlled rents to regulated rents, and with the only provision that is contentious. All the others are mechanism provisions, to see that we get through. When we reach new Clause No. 4 we may have other points to deal with. I am concentrating on subsection (6) of this new Clause, which provides that if a fair rent has been fixed and if it is above the level of the present controlled rent the statutory tenant concerned cannot be obliged to pay more than a 15 per cent. increase on his controlled rent for any one year. The rent must go up by arithmetical progression by not more than 15 per cent. each year.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the 15 per cent. calculated on the statutory rent, or is it applied to the increase?

Mr. Crossman: I have said this twice before. It is 15 per cent. on the frozen controlled rent—the frozen rent under subsection (5). That subsection provides that whatever was the controlled rent remains the controlled rent until rent regulation has taken place. This must be clear now. There is no ambiguity. It is 15 per cent. of the controlled rent, frozen at that level the moment when the Bill comes into force.

Sir Eric Errington: What happens after the first raising of the rent? As I understand it, there is a revision of rent every three years. In certain cases the yearly increase of 15 per cent. may not cause the rent to rise to its proper level before a further alteration has to be made.

Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Member will be patient, we shall reach that point later. We are now discussing the movement not within the regulated rent—from one regulated rent to another—but from controlled rent to regulated rent. The Clause does not deal with the problem of what happens to rent when application is made


to the rent officer to change it after three years. The Clause concerns the movement from the controlled status to the regulated status.
My hon. Friends and I have discussed this matter on many occasions before this. We do not argue among ourselves; we have mutual elucidation. I put it to my hon. Friends that the Amendment which they have kindly placed on the Order Paper is not one which could possibly have been put down if my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) really meant what he said—that this was a noble Bill. He said that it was a noble Bill, but he wanted rigid rents. I must let him into a secret. This is a Bill which destroys rigid rents. If this Bill does anything systematically, it destroys rigidity of rents. It says that there can be differences between area and area. It says that there will be differences. I am not terribly upset if, sometimes, rent assessment committees differ from one another, provided that they respond to the needs of the area. This is not a Bill for that. My hon. Friend needs a different Bill if he wants that to praise. He must not praise it for what it is not. This begins to get away from the mathematical rigidity of the Tory formula in the Rent Act, which the hon. Gentleman wants to perpetuate. I want to get right away from it.
He says that he will put down an Amendment to say that there can be one increase, and after that, the rents are frozen for ever. This is simply a wrecking Amendment. If that is done, there is no movement from controlled to regulated tenancy. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said, that that would simply create three classes of tenants—statutory tenants frozen here, mid-statutory tenants and regulated tenants. All that will have been achieved is the creation of a three-class State. I think that the two-class State is intolerable. To pass an elaborate Bill merely to create a three-class rigid State seems to me absolutely senseless.
Therefore, with all respect to my hon. Friends, I know what they were trying to do, but if they had persuaded me of this, they would have persuaded me to ossify a structure, the curse of which already is its dry ossification. What is

wrong today is this rigidity. Therefore, I beg them to realise that if they have doubts about our rent-fixing methods, as they may have, this is not the Clause to discuss them. They can discuss that on Clause 22, when we come to rent-fixing, but on this Clause they cannot deny me the right to prevent tenants from having to pay in one jump the big increase which is required of them. As this is all that this subsection does, I find it difficult to believe that they will not permit us that degree of humanity, even if it does require a flexibility of mind which I know some of them find difficult.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister accused his colleagues to his left politically of being Conservative. In fact, he obliged us on these benches by making a reasonably good Conservative speech. We all start from the principle that the fair rent procedure as applied to regulated tenancies is accepted and welcomed on both sides of the House where there is a proved shortage. At least, we can agree on that point. I think that that is agreed between such poles apart as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) opposes fair rents altogether and wants to keep them rigid at the present controlled rent plus 15 per cent. However, I think that most of us would start from the principle of the fair rent being the right thing to apply to regulated tenancies at present. Where we on this side of the House think that the Minister has marred that system is the retention of existing control and by not bringing the existing controlled properties within the regulated control system at once.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said, the controlled rents are now wholly out of date. They ought to have been brought into the regulation system at once. In fact, the Minister promised in Committee that when the rent officers were found and the rent assessment committees were set up, and when the system was set into operation in any particular area, he would move the controlled tenancies into the regulation system. He has now partially changed his mind. He is bringing them


into another control system, not into complete regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn said that, as a result, there would now be three different types of control—the old control, the fair rent control, and the controlled rent plus 15 per cent. He was one short. There is another category of controlled rent—that which becomes frozen before one can move from control to having the rent fixed by a rent officer. We do not know how long that may take.
The Clause is entirely new to the Bill. The Minister explained the reason and I quite understand it. The reason for no direct transfer from control to decontrol is that, first, he wants the 800,000 dwellings which he is bringing into regulation to be dealt with. Secondly, he wishes to move the controlled properties not direct to decontrol, but via regulation. Under the back bench revolt which we have seen he has been pushed into making this intermediate stage of the 15 per cent. increase per year. In the course of doing so he has deprived himself of the power, under Section 11(3) of the Rent Act, 1957, to decontrol controlled property by order.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) said that the power should never be used, but that if there were any form of decontrol it should be by Statute and not by order. My hon. Friends and I do not agree with that. We think that Section 11(3) of the Rent Act gave the Minister proper power to move from control to decontrol where he was satisfied that in any area there was no longer a shortage. Now, even though he may be entirely satisfied that there is no shortage of housing accommodation in an area, he must, if the new Clause as it stands is added to the Bill, go through the farce of making controlled property regulated before completely decontrolling it—and on the way freezing the rents for a period between an order turning decontrolled into regulated and those properties being able to come before the rent officer or rent assessment committee.
Subsection (5) of the new Clause is as objectionable and certainly almost as unintelligible as subsection (6). It tells us to disregard Clause 3(3,a) and, as I understand it, freezes the rents of controlled property at the controlled rents until they can come before the rent officer. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that

there were three stages, but I think that he jumped a gap. He said that, first, there would be an order making controlled property regulated property in an area or perhaps over the whole country. The next step, he said, was for the landlord to apply to the rent officer. He did not say that there might not be a rent officer or even a rent assessment committee set up by that time.

Mr. MacColl: I made it clear that the rent would be frozen at the old controlled rate.

Mr. Graham Page: If I am not relating the hon. Gentleman's statement correctly I apologise. I merely wished to point out that there might be quite a long delay between an order and a tenant and landlord being able to come before the rent officer and having a fair rent agreed. During that time the rent will be frozen at the controlled rent. When they eventually get before the rent officer, and perhaps then to a rent assessment committee, and a fair rent is fixed the landlord is not to be entitled to recover that fair rent at once.
The Parliamentary Secretary explained that this dealt only with dwelling houses at a fairly low rent and that the greatest increase one could expect in London would be about £20 a year and elsewhere about £15 a year.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Rent Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Graham Page: Although a fair rent may be fixed by a rent assessment committee at, it may be, 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. more than the existing controlled rent, the landlord will not be entitled to claim it. The right hon. Gentleman said that the trained mind of the lawyer would be able to understand subsection (6). I am the latter, but apparently I have not got the former. I did hope I had a trained mind, but I have certainly found the greatest difficulty in understanding subsection (6) as it is written into the Clause.
I think that this is the way to illustrate my argument. Suppose the controlled rent is £100 per annum and, when the landlord and tenant go before a rent assessment committee, it is decided that the fair rent is £200 per annum. For the first 12 months after that, the landlord will only be entitled to £115 per annum, and it will take him about 6½ years to get his fair rent. By the very term, "fair rent", we have all been using, there is an injustice to the landlord. He is not being entitled to what the rent assessment committee has decided to be a fair and just return on his property from his tenant.
In passing, I would make one comment on the wording of subsection (6). It refers to a notice of increase under Section 7 of the Act, and refers to that notice of increase all the way through the subsection. Reading the subsection, I should have thought that one notice exhausts the powers under Clause 7. Clause 7 talks about a notice of increase being served. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would look at this at some time because I should have thought that, having served one notice the landlord's powers under the Clause would be exhausted, and he would not be able to serve another one for 12 months. However, that is more a drafting point than anything else.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman advocating the view and is it the policy of the party opposite that in the example he quoted the position ought to be that the same tenant who is paying £2 a week today should be compelled to pay £4 a week tomorrow, with no graduation at all?

Mr. Graham Page: If it is found to be a fair rent by the rent assessment committee, it seems to me the tenant should be obliged to pay that rent and that justice should be done to the landlord in that way. The right hon. Gentleman, the Minister, says he does not want a controlled rent to be bumped up too suddenly. Is that not an admission that in many cases controlled rents are grossly unfair at present, if there is to be that large jump or bump between the controlled rent and the fair rent Some of his colleagues want to perpetuate that injustice and that unfairness indefinitely, but he, too, would perpetuate it in my example, which I think is a fairly reasonable

example on figures, for 6½ years. Because that would be the effect of subsection (6) of this Clause, we would wish to press that to a Division.
We have reached the ironical stage that those who had the other Amendments on the Notice Paper cannot possibly vote for subsection (6) to be retained in the Clause. I hope that their votes will go the same way as their voices during the debate. We shall welcome them readily in the Lobby with us against subsection (6).

Mr. Lubbock: It is very unfair on the Minister that, having done his best to produce a sensible compromise, he has succeeded in pleasing nobody—neither his hon. Friends nor the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). In my opinion, he has made an excellent attempt in the new Clause. I have not heard anyone say this during the debate, and someone ought to say it. This is a very reasonable new Clause, and subsection (6), in particular, does a great deal to satisfy the doubts which I felt on the Bill as originally drafted.
I should not like to see imposed at once the enormous increase of 100 per cent. in the example quoted by the hon. Member for Crosby, nor do I want to see a return to the rigid control of pre-1957. What the Minister has done in the new Clause and in subsection (6), in particular, is a very reasonable compromise.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Minister has obviously won over the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and the Liberal Party, and we shall expect to see them in the same lobby in the Division, but I do not see how the Minister's hon. Friends can join him in that Lobby after their uninhibited attack and their outlook on this subject. If justice is done I expect to see the Liberal Party support the Minister, but in the interests of good parliamentary debate and conscientious feeling behind the speeches made, the Minister's hon. Friends should leave him to go it alone.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause, In line 21, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to "of" in line 24, stand part of the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 157.

Division No. 218.]
AYES
[10.8 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hooson, H. E.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Horner, John
Pentland, Norman


Armstrong, Ernest
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest C.


Atkinson, Norman
Howie, W.
Popplewell, Ernest


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, Arthur


Baxter, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, Harry


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Rees, Merlyn


Binns, John
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bishop, E. S.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jackson, Colin
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Roberts, GOronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Robinson, Rt. Hr. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rose, Paul B.


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Kelley, Richard
Rowland, Christopher


Buchanan, Richard
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Sheldon, Robert


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Lawson, George
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Carmichael, Neil
Ledger, Ron
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Coleman, Donald
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Conlan, Bernard
Lever, Harold (Cheatham)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Grossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lubbock, Eric
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McBride, Neil
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McCann, J.
Swain, Thomas


Dell, Edmund
MacColl, James
Swingler, Stephen


Doig, Peter
McGuire, Michael
Symonds, J. B.


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
McInnes, James
Taverne, Dick


Edelman, Maurice
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Ensor, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, Frank


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, Archie
Varley, Eric G.


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mayhew, Christopher
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wallace, George


Ford, Benn
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, Tudor


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Whitlock, William


Garrett, W. E.
Molloy, William
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Garrow, A.
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ginsburg, David
Murray, Albert
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Neal, Harold
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Griffiths, David (ROther Valley)
Norwood, Christopher
Willis, George ((Edinburgh, E.)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oswald, Thomas
Winterbottom, R. E.


Harper, Joseph
Padley, Walter
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hazell, Bert
Palmer, Arthur
Zilliacus, K.


Heffer, Eric S.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles



Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Holman, Percy
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Gourlay.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Bingham, R. M.
Buck, Antony


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Bullus, Sir Eric


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Black, Sir Cyril
Campbell, Gordon


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Blaker, Peter
Carlisle, Mark


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Box, Donald
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Astor, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Awdry, Daniel
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Balniel, Lord
Braine, Bernard
Cole, Norman


Batsford, Brian
Brewis, John
Cooke, Robert


Bell, Ronald
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Corfield, F. V.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Costain, A. P.


Biffen, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Biggs-Davison, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Crawley, Aidan




Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Prior, J. M. L.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Curran, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dance, James
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Kilfedder, James A.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeiey)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kirk, Peter
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Doughty, Charles
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stainton, Keith


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Gilbert
Studholme, Sir Henry


Farr, John
Loveys, Walter H.
Talbot, John E.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clover, Sir Richard
MacArthur, Ian
Teeling, Sir William


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Goodhew, Victor
Maginnis, John E.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gower, Raymond
Mathew, Robert
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maude, Angus
Vickers, Dame Joan


Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Welder, David (High Peak)


Gurden, Harold
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walters, Dennis


Harris, Reader (Heston)
More, Jasper
Ward, Dame Irene


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Webster, David


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Murton, Oscar
Whitelaw, William


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Neave, Airey
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Hay, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hendry, Forbes
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wise, A. R.


Higgins, Terence L.
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hirst, Geoffrey
Peel, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Percival, Ian
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, John
Wylie, N. R.


Iremonger, T. L.
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. Pym.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(RELEASE FROM RENT REGULATION.)

(1) Where the Minister is satisfied with respect to every part of an area in England and Wales or in Scotland that the number of persons seeking to become tenants there—

(a) of dwelling-houses exceeding a specified rateable value, or
(b) of any class or description of dwelling-house or of dwelling-house exceeding a specified rateable value,

is not substantially greater than the number of such dwelling-houses in that part, he may by order provide that no such dwelling-house in the area shall be the subject of a regulated tenancy.

(2) An order under this section may contain such transitional provisions, including provisions to avoid or mitigate hardship, as appear to the Minister to be desirable.

(3) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such order shall have effect unless it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Mr. Grossman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move, That the C1ause be read a Second time.
This Clause completes the revision of the old Clause 15, in which we deal with transition. As it includes a basic change in the provisions of the Bill, I ought to spend a word on it. In Committee, it was pointed out to me that Clause 15 gave the Minister power theoretically—[Interruption.] I am trying to explain to hon. Members opposite what possibly they could disagree with. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) can give this matter his attention.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I thank the right hon. Member, but, broadly speaking, we are paying the same attention as he has paid to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Grossman: This new Clause is the Clause in which we deal with the power which previously existed in Clause 15 to remove a whole area from the provisions of the Bill. I could move the whole of England and Wales out of those provisions by Order. Power was given to remove a whole area from rent control if a Minister so wished. I believe that it was a mistake to give this power to a Minister. If a Bill of this sort is passed,

that kind of basic power should be given by amending legislation. That power is not contained in the new Clause. It now merely enables the Minister to vary the level of rateable value at which rent regulation occurs area by area.
This means that a Minister, if he uses Orders, will be able, for instance, to reduce the rateable value limit below which rent regulation occurs far below its present very high limit. We have put this power in. When I was asked about the high level of rateable value and the number of houses included, my reply always was that if the rent assessment committees find that the level is unnecessarily high, we can by Order reduce it. This is the power which is given here.
However, I strengthen the conditions under which that power can be used, by laying down, broadly in line with the old Clause 22, that the Minister must satisfy himself, before he takes any houses out of rent regulation, that in the area in question supply and demand are in balance in the class of houses concerned. Let us suppose that it was found that the Opposition were correct about the more expensive houses in London. Let us suppose that it was found of a group of houses of high rateable value that supply and demand were in balance and there was no need for rent regulation.. If that were clearly and substantially demonstrable, the Minister would be entitled to reduce by Order the level below which houses were under rent regulation.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The whole of this depends upon the criterion which will satisfy the Minister. What criterion will satisfy the Minister?

Mr. Crossman: The criterion is laid down. We have, broadly speaking, given the same criterion here as we have in rent-fixing in Clause 22. Subsection (1) provides that:
Where the Minister is satisfied with respect to every part of an area in England and Wales or in Scotland that the number of persons seeking to become tenants there—

(a) of dwelling-houses exceeding a specified rateable value, or
(b) of any class or description of dwelling-house or of dwelling-house exceeding a specified rateable value,

is not substantially greater than the number of such dwelling-houses in that part, he may by order provide.


It must be in balance. Scarcity must be eliminated. We have carefully used roughly the same words here as we have used in Clause 22, in the definition of a fair rent, to define the scarcity to which the rent assessment committee and the Minister must pay attention, because scarcity is the justification for rent regulation.

Mr. Rees-Davies: It may have been my mistake. How will the Minister be satisfied? Will it be on evidence from his Ministry, from local authorities, from Members of Parliament, and so on?

Mr. Crossman: I should have thought that predominantly the Minister would listen to the president of the rent assessment committee for the area concerned. That will be very important evidence. Members of Parliament will have a perfect right to debate the matter in Parliament, because the Minister must submit any Order of this sort to affirmative Resolution of the House. I should myself have assumed that rent assessment committees, rent officers and local authorities will play their rôle.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the Minister likely to give a directive to the presidents to make reports to him at various stages so that he can be kept in the picture?

Mr. Crossman: I should not have thought that the Minister would require to give the presidents a directive, because he will have to inform himself so as to make the Orders. These Orders are not made on the instructions of the presidents. They are made by the Minister on his own estimate of the situation. He is not required to take the advice of the presidents, but he will be wise to do so. That is the key point of the new Clause. We have limited the Minister's discretion in winding up the machinery of rent regulation. This means that, whereas in the first draft of the Bill it was possible to eliminate rent regulation altogether by Order and to have no more rent assessment committees and no more rent officers in an area, it will be impossible to do this without amending legislation.

Mr. Lubbock: I wanted to ask the Minister one question. I am sorry to intervene once again, but this is slightly

different from Clause 15 which we discussed in Committee. I should like to know whether the areas mentioned in the new Clause are the same as the registration areas defined in the original Clause 17 and, if so, why they are not called registration areas in the new Clause.

Mr. Crossman: They are not defined as the same. The Clauses give the Minister power to take any area, for instance the area of registration or the area covered by a rent assessment panel or a smaller area within the district. He would be empowered to select any area he chooses for this purpose.

Mr. Murton: I should like to congratulate the Minister on having succeeded, as I think, in this new Clause in stifling so far what was in Standing Committee an incipient revolution among his own hon. Friends who, in Committee, had some hard things to say about the original Clause 15. My hon. and right hon. Friends also had hard things to say about that Clause, but for different reasons. The Minister has met some of our objections, notably in the movement away from the unsatisfactory intention in the original Clause of legislation by negative procedure. We are now to proceed by way of the affirmative Resolution and that is a very good thing.
I find it disappointing that the Minister has not found it possible to go further with his investigation into whether it would be possible for areas to be taken out of the scope of the Bill from the word "go". No doubt when the Bill receives the Royal Assent it will be one of the highlights in the right hon. Gentleman's career, but it is a pity that he has decided that this will not be possible and that the whole of the country will be covered by the Bill from the initial stages. I disagree with the Bill on the specific point of the imposition throughout England and Wales and Scotland, without regard for the necessity for it, of the act of regulation.
We had a long argument about this in Committee. I gave facts and figures from my own constituency of Poole to prove that in many areas in the country outside the largest conurbations there was no real need for regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has borne out that very point with regard to his own constituency


and he supports my case. This judgment on the part of the Minister is typical of the Socialist philosophy of going, I was about to say of going the whole hog, but perhaps I should say, "the whole Crossman".
It would cost the country much money in setting up machinery which I consider to be unnecessary. It would cause unnecessary disturbance in local authorities, amongst landlords and in many spheres in connection with property management. The problem of housing shortage in most areas outside the larger conurbations just does not arise. I think that the Minister would agree that in Committee he was very much in two minds on this problem. One has only to quote what he said in connection with this in Committee to show it.
10.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
… we already have something like an equality of supply and demand in regard to this type of house and where very nearly a fair rent is already reached…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 18th May, 1965; c. 404.]
I think that when the Minister said that he really meant that he was very near coming to the decision that it should not be necessary in all parts of the country.
Rateable values were mentioned earlier, and the Minister says this could be done by direction, in Orders in Council. We welcome this and think it a good system. It can be done, but I would ask the Minister: will it be done within a reasonable measure of time? It is very easy to impose regulations, but it is not so easy to take them off again. He says that supply and demand must be in the balance. We would agree that must be so, but it has to be left to the estimation of the rent assessment committee and of local authorities to recommend when this should be done. I am quite certain that local authorities will be only too willing to be rid of this rather troublesome child which has been fostered upon them.
I only hope that the type of man who will be chosen for the rent assessment committees will also be willing to give up what may be a lucrative part-time appointment when the time comes. I hope that when he thinks that his job is finished he will stand up and say so, so that the regulation may be removed.
On the subject of transitional provisions, the Minister has said that he would move with speed in some areas. That was in referring from rent control to regulation and from this on to decontrol. I think that he said "Yes" when he was asked that question and I hope that we will have an assurance from him in this respect that the time comes he will move with speed.

Mr. Cole: I was completely disillusioned with new Clause No. 4 which is to replace Clause 15 of the Bill. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), the Minister gave two problematical cases of how this parity would be ascertained. The second one he gave dealt with the Order which would require a resolution of each House of Parliament. Unless the Minister himself has had evidence beforehand that such an Order is advisable it will not come before the Members of Parliament so one must go further back than that.
The Minister's first suggestion was that the chairman of a rent assessment committee might find it necessary to report to the Minister that such parity was the case, but is this really sanity? Is a chairman of an assessment committee, who, presumably, is dealing with appeals from the rent officer, likely to say, "This shows that there is parity in the area. Please Minister take this Order away"? Of course not.
I challenge the Minister in the next two years, or any such period as the Government may be in power, to operate new Clause No. 4, as to the taking off of the regulation, however great may be the merits of an area. I am sure that it will not be used, because I believe that the Minister has taken this the wrong way round. The whole lesson we learn in life is always to take the power and apply it where necessary. A doctor does not operate on a patient to find out what the trouble is. He brings his medical knowledge to where the trouble is and the Minister might have learned a lesson from this. Instead, he has taken the whole country as his province and given us those somewhat nebulous terms under new Clause No. 4. When a parity appears to emerge we shall have the Order publicly debated and a decision made by both Houses of Parliament that no longer will the regulation apply.
I shall look with great interest and anticipation to an occasion when we shall ever have such an Order. The Minister has no excuse because in the three months of Committee sittings that we had, my right hon. Friends gave him many examples of areas where parity, or the ordinary competition of people for accommodation, and no more than that, with no scarcity, existed. He was quite unmoved.
Therefore, the Bill will pass into law with a complete umbrella power for the whole country, with this small solatium that we can, possibly, sometimes expect an area to be taken out of the scope of the new Clause. I do not believe that it will happen. I do not believe that the Minister's hon. Friends will allow it to happen. I do not believe that it is in the Socialist psychology for it to happen. The new Clause, with all due respect to the Minister, is only hoping for the best. I should have far more respect for the whole method had the Minister started with the power and applied it to the many areas to which we all agree that it would be applicable and to operate that way instead of the other way round.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), because it is one of importance. This will be bad administration. The words set out in the new Clause read reasonably and the explanation given by the Minister sounded well. Legislation should not only sound reasonable and be able to be presented plausibly, however, but it should be acted upon reasonably later. I do not think that this legislation will be. The whole psychology of party politics will mean that it will operate only if we have a Government in power which is not a Socialist Government. That is the sadness of it.
What will happen? My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) was slightly wrong. He suggested that the chairman of a tribunal should be able to recommend when effect should be given to the scheme and when an order should be made for a certain area.

Mr. Murton: The Minister said that.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: No. I understood the Minister to say that the power was fairly and squarely his. He may ask for and get advice from the people in the areas, but the power is his. I tried, therefore, to suggest that he should give a direction to get information from areas and that he would automatically act upon it. The Minister was clear and replied in the negative. The responsibility will be the Minister's, and it will be left fairly and squarely with him. Therefore, if advice was forthcoming from the localities that the system should be brought into operation and an order introduced, it would be for the Minister to do it.
My hon. Friends made their first point and it is a sound one. It is asking a great deal to expect a chairman, with a quite lucrative and worth-while part-time job, to be eager to give a report that would do him out of it. That is the first snag in giving operative effect to the Minister's clear explanation.
If that advice were to come through to the Minister or he were to get advice from other quarters, from the sort of speeches that we had from his hon. Friends in Committee I cannot imagine a Socialist Minister of Housing being keen to give effect to it in face of the prejudice shown by his hon. Friends in their speeches in Committee, and because of his political position he will have to resist giving effect to something to which effect should be given.
Indeed, the Minister himself confessed to the House that he had a built-in prejudice against the private owner. If he can make the speech which he has just made and have that built-in prejudice, it is not surprising that his hon. Friends have the same sort of prejudice in these matters as they expressed in Committee.
I am arguing that the reasonable words in the new Clause and the plausible explanation given by the Minister will not be put into effect as speedily as they should be, if they ever are to be given effect to, if we have a Socialist Government. It is a pity that when we pass legislation which should be administratively carried without partiality or the influence of party politics, it looks as though, if we have a Socialist Government, the new Clause will never be


brought into operation. That makes me sad.

Sir A. Meyer: I hope that when the Minister is considering making these Orders and he has to balance the probabilities of whether there is or is not sufficient accommodation available, he will, in general, err in the direction of removing regulation a little too soon rather than a little too late. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the effect, which I agree may be only marginal, which rent regulation, or any kind of control, has in inducing a certain number of people who might otherwise make a special effort to provide accommodation to let not to make that accommodation available.
In my constituency, where there is a grave shortage of accommodation, there is a certain amount of accommodation which people might make available if they think that it is worth their while to do so. I do not pretend that the removal of all controls, or the removal from regulation, would solve our problems. Indeed, it would cause great hardship by suddenly raising rent levels, but if regulation is kept on that much longer than is necessary it will further delay the process of bringing extra accommodation on to the market and so solving our problem.
I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to err in the direction of removing regulations a bit too soon, rather than a bit too late.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: In the West Country there will be several cases in which the Minister's discretion could well be exercised. I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman said that he is prepared to consider the type or size of an area if he receives a recommendation to that effect. It has not to be any particular size. It will depend on the advice that he receives. I hope that he will clarify that point before we part with the new Clause.
I deal next with the question of parity between demand and supply, which is really the nub of the new Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has to be satisfied, on advice, that there is parity between supply and demand. This seems to me to be an excessively difficult criterion to satisfy. How will the Minister get the

information? He says that he will get it from the local authorities, from his officials, and from the new chairmen whom he is to appoint. He says that they will advise him on the accommodation that is available for letting.
Will he include accommodation which could be holiday accommodation? Will he include accommodation which is on short or long lease? I think that this poses a very difficult administrative problem. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find it very difficult to balance the evidence and decide whether supply is equalling demand, and that in the end he will come down in favour of retaining this machinery.
I refer next to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton), who talked about the cost of this process. The whole machinery of the Bill will be brought into being in areas such as the West Country. Even though it is known that supply exceeds demand, the whole machinery will be brought into being, and this will, of course, be a costly business. If the Minister is fair and equitable—and I am beginning to have doubts about whether he will be—in assessing the matters at issue and in bringing the levels down, the whole expense will be unnecessary, and will be a great burden on the Exchequer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think twice about this.
I find it rather difficult to understand why, in his opening remarks, he said that the original decision, whereby the Minister had complete discretion, was not correct. I cannot help think that he was assuming that a Conservative Administration would be in charge of matters in a short time and that they would take over responsibility for deciding these matters in those areas where these provisions, quite obviously, should not apply. It must be this fear which has led the right hon. Gentleman to embody this restrictive provision in the new Clause. I regret this, because I do not think that it is administratively right. I think that the expense is considerable and quite unnecessary, and I regret that the matter is to be dealt with in this way.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Remarkably heavy weather is being made of a very simple and ingenious new Clause which I


strongly welcome. The test is the same as the test of a fair rent, and I should have thought that this was the key to the whole problem which the Minister will face in deciding whether, in any area, houses of a certain rateable value should be taken out of regulation.
It must necessarily follow, as I understand the Clause, and the test provided for in it, that when, broadly, the stage is reached when the price payable for houses in the rateable range that one is considering is an equivalent capital value to the capital equivalent of the fair rents which are being set by the rent officers and rent committees in relation to that range of houses, one has reached that degree of equality between supply and demand at which that range of houses can be taken out of regulation. It must inevitably follow that if there is equality of supply and demand the prices which people will obtain for a house with vacant possession will be the equivalent of the fair rent for that house.
If the Minister obtains the information from the various areas which enables him to adopt that test, it is an extremely simple one, and all the difficulties suggested by hon. Members opposite will disappear.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: From the point of view of drafting the new Clause, in one respect, shows some improvement over the original Clause 15, part of which it is designed to replace. The right hon. Gentleman was right to separate the respective powers of decontrol and deregulation. That makes the position clearer and more practicable. Nor do I attach as much importance as does one of my hon. Friends to the fact that the new Clause introduces what was omitted from Clause 15, namely, the factor of the adequacy of the supply of accommodation. I do not think that any Minister, in making a decision on this matter, would act other than in accordance with that consideration, and I doubt whether it makes a pennyworth of difference whether it is put explicitly into the Bill.
Some of my hon. Friends are sceptical of the value of this Clause. To some extent that scepticism turns on their judgment of the Minister. I would not seek to inflame opinion by commenting on

that; I merely say that these powers are valuable powers, whether for this Minister or some other Minister, and it would be a grave omission not to have them in the Bill. It has been our view that the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to extend control throughout the country, regardless of need. It recalls the anecdote concerning her very late Majesty, Queen Elizabeth I, of whom a chronicler wrote:
So cleanly was she that she took a bath once a month, whether she needed it or not.
The right hon. Gentleman is applying control all over the country whether there is a need for it or not. That is a great mistake. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) has said, if control is applied where it is not needed it diminishes the willingness of people to provide accommodation to let—and one of the grave difficulties running right through the Bill is that whatever else it does it must discourage the provision of accommodation to let, which is the biggest shortage of accommodation.
The right hon. Gentleman having done that, in our judgment wrongly, it is at least a sign of grace to which theologians—and I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is present—will attach great importance. The right hon. Gentleman has at least taken power to effect a speedy repentance. That is what the Clause provides. Having applied regulation throughout the country, he is taking power, as a matter of strict law, to take large parts—indeed, the whole country—out of it again as soon as the Bill is law. Those are the powers. I should like to know one or two things about what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. First, as I understand the Clause, this power can be exercised in respect of areas. What does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate by way of areas? Does he contemplate large areas moving together, or comparatively small ones? Before entrusting the right hon. Gentleman with these powers, the House would like to know how he proposes to exercise them.
I should like also to know whether he intends to take very early action in respect of certain areas. Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will recall that, during our second sitting, I gave at some length details of parts of the country in which the number of households was appreciably less than the number of dwellings. I gave certain


percentages. I do not want to weary the House by repeating them all. In column 64, for 27th April—running over, I am ashamed to say, into column 65—I pointed out that in Wales the percentage ran down to 94 per cent. of households to dwellings, and in one case to 92·1 per cent. In such administrative counties as Somerset, Northumberland and the West Riding of Yorkshire, the percentages were 98·5, 98·5 and 98. I gave a number of other figures.
I should like to know, as would the House, what the Minister has in mind if he takes this power. Has he in mind making an Order in respect of these areas promptly, so that it will not be necessary to go to the expense and administrative inconvenience of setting up a whole system of rent officers and rent assessment committees? He has the power to do so, but I should like to know what his intentions are. Again, I should like to know how he proposes to exercise the power. If I understand the Clause aright, he can exercise it in one of two ways. He can apply it in a particular area in respect of dwellings above a certain rateable value, or he can apply it to all dwellings in the area—

Mr. Crossman: The second is not possible. I said in my first speech that it is impossible to remove an area as such out of the Bill. I carefully said that this was the change, that one can only reduce the rateable value. One could achieve the same change in stages, but cannot, by one stroke of the pen, take one area out of the Bill. One cannot take all houses out of the Bill: one can take only houses of a certain class.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I follow that, but I take it that, whatever the right hon. Gentleman intends, there is legally no difficulty—there is some alarm behind him at that—in putting the figure so low that it would take the area out of regulation.

Mr. Crossman: I must make it clear that the Clause is drafted so that that cannot be done. One cannot take an area: one has to take a class of houses. If one did it by a series of Orders, one might achieve a lowering of rateable value of this kind, but that would leave the administrative structure intact.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Then I paid an unnecessary compliment to the drafting of the Clause. Its clarity has proved, to some extent, misleading. I still think, on my reading of the Clause, that, if the Minister has a free power to take out of regulation houses of any rateable value which he chooses, it would be legally possible to take a figure of 10s. and so, in effect, take an area out of regulation.
I may be wrong on this, as we have seen the Clause only during the last day or two and knew which we were to discuss quite recently. I do not wish to be arrogant about my powers of construction, but this is as I read it. I should like some explanation if I am wrong. On the hypothesis that I am right, in this respect too, I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are.
To summarise what I have been saying, the new Clause, whether or not its powers are exercised, confers great powers on the Minister of the day—powers to alter in very substantial degree the impact and effect of the Measure. I do not regret that. For the reasons I have given, the right hon. Gentleman, having decided on the general pattern of the Bill, is right to take powers which will enable him to undo the harm he has done.
However, if we are to confer these powers on him, it is in accord with normal parliamentary custom for the right hon. Gentleman to give an indication of his present intentions about their exercise. No one would expect him to commit himself, still less his successors, for all time. We merely wish to be told, in conferring these powers—whatever they are—on the right hon. Gentleman, his intentions about their use. I believe that certain hon. Gentlemen opposite are equally interested to know the answer to this question.

Mr. Crossman: Perhaps I was being over-anxious when I intervened a moment ago. Exactly the reverse of what the right hon. Gentleman said is the true position. Legally, an area could not be taken out, although de facto one could virtually remove an area by taking the houses out; that is, by reducing the rateable value limit to a low level. It is, therefore, a factual power and not a legal one.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman said that exactly the opposite of what I had said was, the position, but what I said was the hypothesis which I put to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he is actually saying that what I envisaged was right.

Mr. Crossman: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman said that one would be legally entitled to do it. I might have misunderstood him. Legally, one must put it in terms of houses. Factually, this means that one could reduce the rateable value to a certain level where de facto one wound up the administration in this connection.
I was asked about the size of the areas. It is my intention to use the areas of the panels which I have drawn up. I think that there will be 16 of them in England. One could consider areas like the West Midlands or Greater London. It would be easier to take areas in this way. At present, my mind is fairly clear on this issue. One of our aims will be to have the greatest uniformity possible, although there may be cases later for taking areas out. As I say, I envisage taking the areas in terms of the panels.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) said, "When in doubt take an area out". I would say, "When in doubt protect the tenant". I would not agree that when one is in doubt one should wind up the machinery. In this connection, I was asked whether it would be difficult to assess whether or not one needed the machinery. We will have better information about this in future than we have at present. We are now organising the information that will be required for the functioning of the rent assessment committees. No doubt as they proceed we will collect the facts more easily.
There will be one relatively simple test about the need for the machinery, although I do not say that it will be a decisive test. It will be the number of people who go to appeal. If the number of appeals by landlords and tenants in an area dwindles to a negligible amount that will be an indication that, in a sense, rents are fair in that area. Thus, the number of cases coming to the attention of the rent officer or rent assessment

committee in an area will be a reasonably simple test, although the Minister would be unwise to take that as his sole test.
If I consider, for example, the present state of the furnished rent tribunals I would not say that the small number of cases coming to them was sufficient proof that there was no need for the tribunals. People may not be coming to them because they consider that they are not getting protection or because they are not satisfied for some other reason. So we must be careful, even about the single test I mentioned. However, it is one test, and gives the sense of justice or injustice which is felt by landlords and tenants, for we see by that test the number of them who bring cases forward. But we shall need to have further information which I think it will be possible to acquire.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: In certain areas local authorities will be able to tell, this year, 1965, that there are certain areas where it will not be necessary to have rent assessment committees. I quite recognise that later their advice might be wanted, but at this stage the advice of the local authorities can be got, and in certain areas all the paraphernalia could be saved.

Mr. Crossman: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has thought of the full problem that we have to face. There is no area of the country, so far as I know, where there are no controlled tenants. The controlled tenant must move into rent regulation, unless he is to stay controlled. Therefore, there is no area where we shall not need the movement from control, because there are controlled tenancies which need to be revised. That is the simple fact with which we start. There is a later new Clause by which we make some provision for this, by providing that members of rent tribunals will in future be able to deal with both furnished and unfurnished problems, so if there were a reduction of business the business could be concentrated on the one set of people.

Mr. Murton: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether, for instance, in the West Country, the area would have Bristol in it? An area sparsely inhabited and joined to a large conurbation could never be released from regulation. Is it the intention that in each area there should be a large conurbation?

Mr. Crossman: No, not necessarily, but we have not finalised the boundaries of areas. I was thinking that probably Devon and Cornwall would form a close area, including Plymouth. A sizeable area would probably include a conurbation.
I do not want to be dogmatic about particular areas. We want to get reasonably large areas because we want to get uniformity and to get circulation, but later we may be able to have smaller areas. The needs will manifest themselves quite clearly.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: What difference will there be as between an industrial area and a rural area? Is all the paraphernalia necessary in areas in which the problem will not be there?

Mr. Crossman: The problem will be there. Even in rural areas there are controlled tenants to be dealt with. There are controlled tenancies in rural areas. Every controlled tenant will have to be either frozen permanently as a controlled tenant or released into regulation, and that will happen.
I think that it is probably in the rural areas that the movement will be more rapid than in great conurbations, for the simple reason that the number of decontrolled cases coming into regulation will be fewer.
I should like to reply to one of the points in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The figures he gave of various areas were interesting. It is the question of the number of families, and

New Clause. —(SECOND TRANSMISSION ON DEATH.)

(1) The following provisions of this section shall apply on the death of the tenant under a statutory tenancy (in this section referred to as the first successor) whose right to retain possession by virtue of the Rent Acts arose on the death of the person who had been the tenant under a tenancy to which those Acts applied.


(2) If either—


(a) the first successor leaves a widow who was residing with him at his death; or


(b) the first successor is a woman or leaves no such widow but a member of his family was residing with him for not less than six months immediately before his death,


the widow or member of the first successor's family (or, if more than one, such of them as may in default of agreement be decided by the county court) shall be the second successor for the purposes of this section and, except in the case mentioned in subsection (5) of this section, the right to retain possession by virtue of the Rent Acts shall pass to him.


(3) The second successor (except in the case mentioned in subsection (5) of this section) shall be the tenant under a regulated tenancy, whether or not the tenancy mentioned in subsection (1) of this section was one to which the Rent Acts applied by

the number of units of accommodation exceeding the number of families. I would warn him that these were figures which were the undoing of the Conservative Government in 1957. What is relevant is whether the number of units of accommodation, for instance, at low rents, exceeds the number of families needing houses to rent.

This was the major miscalculation of decontrol, of thinking that you could calculate in total figures and thereby say there is no shortage. In 1957, people argued that because, nationally, the number of units of accommodation nearly exceeded the number of families there was no shortage. Shortages inevitably occur in terms of specific kinds of accommodation, particularly in rented accommodation.

It is no good producing, a large number of houses for owner-occupiers unless you can also calculate that there are a number of people who cannot afford to be owner-occupiers and you have separate accommodation for them. The argument of infiltration does not work perfectly and fast enough. It would not be true that one would be able to conclude simply from those statistical figures that there was no need in particular areas. There might be a need for rent control because rented accommodation was in short supply, although there was a surplus of other kinds of accommodation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

virtue of section 1 of this Act; but where the Rent Acts applied to that tenancy apart from that section—


a) this Act shall apply in relation to the regulated tenancy as if the last rental period beginning before the death of the first successor had been a contractual period; and


(b) the regulated tenancy shall be disregarded for the purposes of secton 3 (3) (a) of this Act.


(4) In the Rent Acts and this Act the expression "tenant" shall include any person who retains possession by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section.


(5) If the statutory tenancy mentioned in subsection (1) of this section was one to which, had it been a tenancy within the meaning of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part II of that Act would have applied but for paragraph (c) of section 43 (1) of that Act, the second successor shall be deemed for the purposes of that Act to be the tenant under a tenancy continuing by virtue of section 24 thereof after the expiry of a term of years certain.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss with this new Clause the three Amendments to it in the name of the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), in line 6, after "widow", insert "or widower"; to leave out lines 7 to 10; and in line 11, leave out from "widow" to "shall" in line 12 and insert "or widower".

Mr. MacColl: This new Clause deals with the second transmission of a tenancy on the death of a statutory tenant. Under Section 12 of that 1920 Rent Act, where a tenant in a tenancy to which that Rent Act applied dies, that controlled tenancy passes to his widow, or to a member of his family living with him for not less than six months. But, when this provision was interpreted by the courts over the years, it was established that this could happen only once. This meant that when a daughter had given up her life to care for her parents, and the father, who had been the original controlled tenant, died, and the widow lived on, and the daughter lived with her and looked after her for many years, when the mother died the daughter had no legal protection whatsoever. She was, therefore, liable to be evicted, and frequently was evicted as a result.
This is not merely an old anomaly. It is still something which is going on. There was a recent case before the Court of Appeal this year. This was a case where a father had been living with his son and daughter. On the father's death, the son and daughter continued to live in the accommodation and the son's name was put on the rent book. On

the death of the son, the daughter, then 68 years of age, found herself with no rights whatsoever in the house where she had lived since birth and in which she had faithfully cared for her father and brother. This is the kind of situation with which this Clause is designed to deal.
I will give a brief description of how the Clause works. It says that where a tenant has died, if either
the first successor leaves a widow who was residing with him at his death; or
the first successor is a woman or leaves no such widow but a member of his family was residing with him for not less than six months immediately before his death,
then the second successor can succeed to the regulated, and not to the old controlled, tenancy. If there is any dispute about a series of people who might claim to be the second successors, a county court arbitrates between them and decides who should succeed.
The effect of this as I see it, is that the second successor would be a regulated tenant having the full security of tenure of the old controlled tenant. However, he would pay the fair rent as fixed by the rent officer or the rent assessment committee. In some cases, he might be paying a larger rent, but, nevertheless, he would have the protection and security of tenure of the Rent Acts.
This is the removal of an anomaly and a piece of common humanity which I think, will present itself to the House as being a very desirable improvement to make.

Mr. Carlisle: My first reaction on reading this new Clause before the Report stage was one of surprise, and I asked myself why the Government had decided to bring the Clause in at this stage.


Certainly, the matter was never raised at any time during the Committee stage of the Bill, nor does it fit in with the other provisions of the Rent Bill we are now discussing.
As the Parliamentary Secretary has himself admitted, the Clause is a wholly new provision. In previous Rent Acts—and, as he says, in the 1920 Rent Act—the succession of a statutory tenant has always been limited to the one step on the death of the tenant. Never has it been suggested that there could be further successions to a statutory tenancy. Yet, on Report, we have the Government bringing in a Clause which proposes to give protection under the Rent Acts for two successions to a controlled tenancy or a regulated tenancy.
I can see that the Clause as it stands would give security to grandchildren living in the house of a tenant who was either a statutory tenant or a regulated tenant. Assuming I understand the Clause aright, if that existing tenancy is a controlled tenancy, then although there may have been two successions on a death, both of which may mean a further generation on each occasion, still the rent would remain a controlled rent by 1957 standards.
The Clause states that on a second transmission the tenancy shall become a regulated tenancy, but subsection (3,a) says:
(3) The second successor (except in the case mentioned in subsection (5) of this section) shall be the tenant under a regulated tenancy, whether or not the tenancy mentioned in subsection (1) of this section was one to which the Rent Acts applied by virtue of section 1 of this Act; but where the Rent Acts applied to that tenancy apart from that section—
(a) this Act shall apply in relation to the regulated tenancy as if the last rental period beginning before the death of the first successor had been a contractual period; and
As I understand that provision, it means that, at the time of the second succession and unless any increase is given, a controlled rent would be the 1957 controlled rent.
As I say, my first reaction on seeing the Clause was one of surprise and inquiry as to why the Government should bring it in at this stage. The Parliamentary Secretary has given one reason for that in his speech, has referred to the case of a daughter living with her father and mother, the father being the tenant,

and the parents dying rapidly one after the other, leaving an elderly daughter alone in the house. I concede at once that under the 1920 Act she would not be protected.
11.15 p.m.
A fair comment that might be made on the hon. Gentleman's observation is that it is often said that hard cases do not make good law. Here it seems that the Government propose to change the law and as an explanation and justification for doing so give an extreme example of a hard case. If we consider the new Clause carefully, however, we find that far graver injustices are likely to be caused in normal circumstances to the landlord or owner of the premises than would be the case in the extreme hard case mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary.
The hon. Gentleman perhaps paid me an unjustified compliment in believing that I was keeping up with the law reports. I cannot pretend to be aware of the case that he says has been dealt with this year by the courts, and reported, but he will have noticed that I was not unmindful of his second example—the father who died, the son becoming the statutory tenant and shortly afterwards dying, and the widow being left unprotected. He will note that, for the type of reason to which he has referred, my Amendment proposes to allow a second succession to a widow or widower.
Where I believe the Clause goes too far is in allowing the succession to go to the second generation. Let us take what is not an unextreme example. The wife of a man who is the tenant of the house predeceases him, but living in the house at the time of her death is the man's son, perhaps in his thirties. Under the 1920 Act, when the man dies the son becomes the first statutory tenant—that is the first succession. There, one has an immediate move of one generation.
That son marries and continues in the house until he dies, about 40 years later, leaving, in his turn, a son of 20. Under the new Clause, that grandchild of the first tenant would become a controlled tenant with the security of the Bill. That is an example of the succession going through two generations and covering about 60 years of control from the date of the death of the first tenant—

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why this is an evil? It is not sufficient merely to state that it happens for it to become an evil. If the tenant is to pay a fair rent, what is the harm in enabling the house to remain in the family, nor merely for as long as that but, indeed, indefinitely?

Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would wish to be fair to me, and to quote me accurately. I have never suggested that the new Clause is evil. I was saying that while I appreciated that the Parliamentary Secretary's argument was based on a hard case, greater hardships were likely to be caused to the landlord or the owner if this new Clause were added to the Bill. I should like to develop my argument, having just given a possible example of control going through two full generations as a result of the operation of the new Clause.
What is the position of the person who has bought the premises with the intent himself of sometime living there? The hon. and learned Gentleman, when speaking to new Clause No. 11, himself gave the example of the person who owns the property and wants it for himself, for a member of the family, or for someone outside the immediate family circle—perhaps someone whom he employs. Under the present Rent Act he has to wait until the tenant dies. He has to wait for the death of the tenant's widow or member of the tenant's family who wishes to stay on before the benefit of control under the Rent Act ceases.
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but, with respect, that is so. I know that he can go to the court and offer alternative accommodation and things of that nature, but I am assuming that this person is under the Rent Act, that the owner wants the house for his own occupation, for some other person or even for redevelopment which is not covered under the 1933 Act. He has now got to wait before he can get possession, unless he proves one of the necessary grounds under the 1933 Act which do not cover redevelopment, for two generations to pass. I think that that may cause great hardship to the owner of those premises.
I will give another example. As I understand, the Bill at present would

cover a service tenancy, although it would not cover a service occupancy. What is the position if, in fact, one has let a building on a service tenancy and the service tenant dies? That house, occupied as a service tenancy under this Clause, could continue to be controlled to a person no longer in the employment of the owner for a further two generations.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Surely the 1933 Act would apply to a service tenancy? It would be possible for the owner, provided that he needed the premises for another service tenant doing the same kind of job, to give notice under the 1933 Act.

Mr. Carlisle: I have never suggested that the grounds available under the 1933 Act are in any way affected by this Clause. What I am saying is that it is still retained in control for two generations without justification having been put up for it.
I would now ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question about agricultural tenancies. I accept that this Clause would not cover the agricultural tied cottage because that would be an occupancy rather than a tenancy, but what of the case which the Minister himself said he had some sympathy for earlier this afternoon, that of the farmhouse let to someone who is not an agricultural tenant? Maybe a farmer has this house or cottage on his farm and it becomes vacant and he decides to let it to someone who is not in agriculture rather than leave it vacant until he gets a new employee.
Under the Bill there is no means by which that farmer has a right to recover possession, and under this Clause it means that that farmhouse could remain for two generations protected by the Rent Acts when the farmer himself wants it for other reasons.
The final example I would put to the Parliamentary Secretary is more a question. Am I to understand that this Clause would cover mixed properties? We were told by the learned Attorney-General during the Committee stage that mixed properties had been specifically excluded from the Bill. But the new Clause talks about statutory tenancies "by virtue of the Rent Acts." Presumably that


would, therefore, include mixed properties as being properties which have been under previous Rent Acts. Am I right in assuming that this Clause would refer to mixed properties and allow a second transmission on death in these cases?

The Attorney-General: Mixed properties are expressly excluded by subsection (5) of the new Clause.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful for that answer. I hope that it will not be thought by the Parliamentary Secretary that in proposing the Amendment and expressing my opposition to the new Clause in general I am in any way to be accused of being hard-hearted towards the difficult case. The purpose of my Amendment is specifically to cover the case where the widow or widower is left, as in this case, with a second transmission on death. The Clause seems to be purely based on the unfortunate type of circumstances which the Parliamentary Secretary foresees of the daughter living with her parents. To draft a new Clause which, in itself, would raise many hardships and difficulties for owners is completely wrong and to import at this stage into the Bill as a completely new principle is something which should be resisted.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I want to say a word of welcome, qualified welcome, to this new Clause. It is qualified because I think that it should go further. I have always taken the view that the decision of the court on the interpretation Section of the 1920 Act which led to the anomaly which this Clause seeks to put right was a bad decision. It was one with which I did not agree as a matter of construction, but that doubtless was my fault. I certainly did not agree with it as a matter of policy.
In so far as the new Clause removes part of the anomaly, I welcome it, but I see no reason whatever why it should not go all the way. Now that we are introducing a system of regulation and fair rents which remain fair for years and are capable of alteration, I see no reason why the Clause should not go the whole way and enable the family to remain in the house which it regards as its home so long as the family exists and so long as the landlord has not got

grounds for claiming possession provided in the Rent Acts.
The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) ignored the very strong grounds under which a landlord can obtain possession, grounds of greater hardship where he requires the house for his own occupation or to a member of his family and so on.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I have not dealt professionally with the 1933 Act since before the war, but I thought that it was extremely difficult to prove that the landlord had greater hardship.

Mr. Silkin: My experience, which arises from the burden of proof under the Rent Acts, is that it is necessary for the landlord to prove, first, that he requires possession of the house for himself or a member of his family. It is then for the tenant to show that he would suffer greater hardship if an order were made than if it were not made. The burden is at that stage shifted to the tenant. In my experience, if there is a fair balance between the hardship on the landlord and on the tenant it must follow that the landlord's hardship will prevail. That certainly frequently happens.
That is only one of the grounds upon which an order for possession can be made and that order will continue to be available to the landlord however many times the succession passes in favour of a member of the tenant's family as a successor to the tenant.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: Accepting that these grounds under the 1933 Act can still exist, would the hon. and learned Member apply his mind to the other matter I raised, the question of the landlord requiring the house for development of an area in which other tenancies have fallen in? Surely he would agree that at the moment the landlord would have no power under the 1933 Act to gain possession? Is it right that possible redevelopment should be held up for 50 or 60 years as in the example I gave?

Mr. Silkin: That is the position which applies under the existing legislation. It applies in the course of a contractual tenancy and in the course of a statutory tenancy which follows and it applies in the course of a succession statutory


tenancy which follows. Under this Clause it will apply in relation to a further succession if there is one. I would like to see it applied throughout the life of the house.
The acquisition of a house for the purposes of redevelopment of part of an area which requires redevelopment is something which should come under quite separate legislation, such as town planning legislation of housing legislation. Legislation for the benefit of the developer may well be introduced in due course. I cannot speak about it, because I have no idea what the legislation will contain.
As the law stands today there are powers which enable authorities to obtain a house in these circumstances if an area is required to be redeveloped. Apart from the case which the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has put forward—and I recognise the force of that—there is no difficulty whatever in adapting the provision of the Rent Acts and the rights that landlords have under the Acts to succession of statutory tenancies to prevent families being driven out of their homes and what, as the years go by, they regard more and more as their homes. In the past, this has happened at a purely arbitrary time and under this Clause will continue to happen at a purely arbitrary time although it will be deferred a little longer.
I hope that when the Minister further considers the Clause with the Attorney General he will see whether it is possible to make a further Amendment of the type which I have suggested. No doubt it could be made in another place, so that there would be no arbitrary stop after this second succession.

Mr. Costain: In considering this Clause we should bear in mind that we are creating a new privileged class. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should consider creating such a class.

Mr. Julius Silverman: We are protecting an under-privileged class.

Mr. Costain: I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that that is what we are not doing. The ordinary landlord or the investment company is only too happy to have continuity of tenants and one family generation after

another. Good landlords welcome that; indeed, some of our noble estates have been built up in that way and we welcome it.
What has been the trouble in the past is that the privilege of living in a house has carried with it the special privilege of rent. The Minister, in an earlier debate, having quietened down his Left wing, made them appreciate that one of the major points of the Bill is to adjust rents to fair rent and then, as far as the landlord is concerned, there is not the same objection to having a sitting tenant.
It is necessary to draw the House's attention to another class—the class of people who want a house. Hon. Members opposite have an obsession that once a person is in a house everything should be done to keep him there. They overlook the fact that there is another generation which wants houses and that it may be better to release houses for them and not pass them on to the second or third generation.
This is what I find the greatest difficulty in pressing on the hon. Gentlemen opposite. They believe, quite honestly, because they do not understand otherwise, that once a person is in a house he has the right, for all time, to live in that house. That may be so. But so long as we have Socialist ideas which are holding up house building, so long will we have under-privileged classes who have not got possession of houses.
In considering the Clause, we should pay special attention not to the sitting tenant, but to the one who may have a greater need. If the House is satisfied that that situation can be dealt with I would have no objection to the Clause.

Mr. John E. Talbot: I am rather interested, by this Clause, to see the conversion of the Socialist Party to the hereditary principle. When one recollects the animosity that it displayed towards hereditary peerages, and the matter of the discontinuance of the hereditary baronetcy, it is most amusing, if it were not so tragic in other respects, to see its great advocacy of the hereditary tenancy. I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), with a short example, which could well be a possible result if this Clause is accepted.
I postulate, for the purpose of my example. An affected house is let in 1915, which is the first year of control, to a man of 25. In 1970, he, having continued as tenant, dies at the age of 80. His wife having predeceased him, the tenancy will pass, under existing law, to an unmarried son living with him, aged 40. If we go a stage further and say that this man of 40 gets married, and, as middle-aged men often do, he selects a wife considerably younger than himself, aged 25, he may remain in occupation for a further 10 years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not for long."] I suppose that my constitution is better than that of the hon. Gentleman who interrupted.
This is a matter of simple arithmetic. There are 50 years in the first tenancy and 40 in the second. That makes a total of 90 and a possible 20 or 25 years further in the third tenancy. This means that the house, let in 1915, will not become vacant, under the terms of this Clause potentially, until the year 2030. [An HON. MEMBER: "The house will then be knocked down."] That might very well be the end of it. But on letting to a tenant a landlord is prevented from having arty benefit from his property for over 100 years until a Socialist council knocks it down. What a marvellous sort of future in which landlords might contemplate the possibility of getting anything out of their property! It must be remembered they will not get anything out of it in the way of rent. The whole basis of the Bill is that the landlord will always have less rent than the true market price. This will be exactly what the Bill seeks to set up. Never be a landlord again. Any time a person in the country lets property on a tenancy he wants his head examined. As a right hon. and learned Friend of mine said in another capacity, he is plainly "bonkers."

Dame Irene Ward: Could my hon. Friend tell me how old the landlord would be in those 100 years?

Mr. Talbot: I am surprised at my hon. Friend. The landlord would be worn out long before that. That is a factor to which the Rent Act legislation will contribute considerably.
This really is a piece of Socialist folly. There is no real hardship, despite the Court of Appeal case which has been

quoted, in the ordinary way in saying that when a statutory tenancy has passed once, it is not unreasonable for the landlord, whether he be the original landlord or, as is quite often the case, a successor two or three times removed, to have the right to get something out of his property.
We have this obsession against eviction. The Minister seems to picture landlords and bailiffs rushing round the country throwing people out of houses. I have been a country solicitor for 35 years. I have only once evicted anybody without a court order, and on that occasion my client was a local co-operative society. A lot of what I call the preparatory background to the Bill is entirely fiction. These things just do not happen, except in a few cases where, possibly, coloured landlords exploit their own people.

Mr. William Molloy: Has the hon. Member never heard of Milner Holland?

Mr. Talbot: Of course I have. Everybody has heard of him. Had the Government adopted his Report in the true sense in which it was written, we should have had a much better Bill than this.
The difficulty about the Clause is the effect that it will have on people who might let houses or who might be approached by tenants for a concession. If they know the law—and landlords do know the law; in most cases they are properly advised—they will know that if they do something to let a house, in the terms of the Clause they will never in their lifetime, or their grandsons in theirs, see that house again.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to have second thoughts. Does he think that he is doing any good to the people whose interests he wants to protect by making the law so absurdly harsh that nobody will comply with it? Anybody who lets a house after the Bill is law and finds himself in trouble will have only himself to blame.
When dealing with social questions of this type, is it not better for the Government not to be so biased that everything they do is directed to helping those social classes who, they think, vote for them and entirely to abandon any justice to those who provide housing accommodation? That is what the Bill will do, and


that is the worst thing about it. It is biased in conception, as it will be in execution. It will institute a system of people's courts staffed by Socialists and retired trade unionists who will take their prejudices with them into the courtroom and in that way create, not the good will that should exist, and in many cases does exist, between landlords and tenants, but a festering sore which will remain on the Statute Book until the party on this side of the House corrects it.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but I have been goaded to do so by some of the speeches from this side of the House. Hon. Members who have spoken in this debate must have been reading too much Galsworthy. They have presented to the House a picture of tenants who marry at a late age, and whose children subsequently do the same, so that the span between generations is fantastic.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) who popped into the Chamber and asked a question while we were in the middle of our arithmetic, reminded me of the old riddle, "What was the name of the engine driver?". The remarkable think about this whole discussion is how tenants manage to retain their potency until such an advanced age, whereas landlords are exhausted before their time. I think that an hon. Member of this side of the House put his finger on it when he asked, "Why should the landlords mind, as long as they are getting a fair rent?", and that is what the Bill is about.
We are not talking about controlled tenancies where the rent is artificially depressed and the landlord is deprived of a proper income from his property. Long before we get to that stage these properties will have passed from the old control into regulation, or at least I hope so. I am not contemplating a situation where old control lasts for 40 years. I imagine that within five or 10 years the whole of the United Kingdom will have passed from old control into regulation, and this is what some hon. Gentlemen opposite were objecting to when we were talking about the last new Clause. We cannot have it both ways. Either this

will happen and these landlords will receive a fair rent and they will have nothing to grumble about when the tenants continue in occupation, or we got the whole thing wrong on the last new Clause, so I do not think that we should quarrel with this new Clause.
As for saying that these tenants should make way for somebody else who is in greater need, I do not think that the people who say that have any concept of the housing situation in this country. Where do they think that the people who are displaced will go? Do they think that because a young couple are to move into property which has been occupied by the same family for 50 years that that family will find it easy to find alternative accommodation? Or will they be made homeless? How does this help us to solve the housing situation? I would be grateful if they would explain this, because we heard this attitude expressed by the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) when we were discussing this in Committee. He did not deign to enlighten we as to where the displaced tenants would go.
There is no such thing as greater need. We should put that out of our minds, and decide that until the housing shortage is solved one does not help by seeking to displace one class of tenants by making way for somebody else. Local authorities do not do this. Good landlords do not do it. It is a matter of waiting one's turn, and I am afraid—

Mr. Carlisle: Is not the hon. Gentleman arguing wholly contrary to what he said on the first group of Amendments when he was arguing the case of the person who bought a property with the intention of using it as a residence for himself? It is not only a question of a fair rent. It may be that the person has bought the house and wishes to move into it. With the second succession being allowed, he might not get the chance to live there.

Mr. Lubbock: It is not possible to get true mobility in conditions of a shortage of housing. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the landlord must have lived in the house to qualify for the benefit provided by new Clause 1. I think that when the hon. Gentleman reflects on the matter he will realise that


that new Clause is not relevant to the issues that we are discussing now.
I am sorry that I have spoken for so long, but I felt that I could not allow the ridiculous remarks that we have heard from this side of the House to pass without some comment.

Mr. MacColl: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might reply to some of the points which have been raised.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) rebuked me for not having gone further to extend the protection to other successions. As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said earlier, if one tries to steer a middle way, one gets kicked from both sides. I agree that there is a good case for saying that one might have extended this to other successions, but at least the other side has been put in this debate.
At least we are trying to do something. We recognise the extent of the problem and we are tackling it, which has not been done for 14 years. We claim some credit for having done that. At least this gives time for a family to take some steps to look around. If the two parents die, at least for the lifetime of the daughter or the eldest son—whoever has lived in the house—the rest of the family will have time to look for somewhere else to go.
The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said that this matter had not been mentioned in Committee. That is not quite correct.

Mr. Carlisle: . I withdraw that statement. The fact that it was mentioned has been drawn to my attention.

Mr. MacColl: That is a pity. I had a good quotation about it; the hon. Member has just saved himself.
The main point is that there are various grounds for obtaining possession. Many have been discussed in Committee, and were laid down in the 1933 Act. There are grounds concerning a service tenancy which is wanted for another servant. There is the case of the person who wants the accommodation for his own family, and there is the factor of greater hardship. I would have thought it reasonable to say that some cases of this sort were tremendously pathetic—as was the case

of the old lady of 68, to which I have referred—and others not so difficult, where there was less excuse for the existing tenant staying.
Surely the right thing to do is to let the county court arbitrate. If one believes in the rule of law surely one takes the view that these matters should go to the county courts, where the judges can arbitrate on the question where the greater hardship lies.
The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Runcorn would extend the provisions to a widower who married a widow who, in the circumstances that we have been describing, did not survive for six months after the marriage, so that the widower could not claim protection as a member of the family. The hon. Member would include that sort of person but would exclude the case where the elder daughter succeeded her brother. That would not be covered by the Amendment.

Mr. Molloy: From time to time we all apply our minds to the problem of how to solve our grievous housing problem. I pride myself on having had 10 years' experience on a local authority. From time to time we ask ourselves how this situation, that we find so difficult to solve, came about. I have found the answer to that question tonight, in the contributions we have had from the hon. Member for Folkestone (Mr. Costain) and the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot). They have expressed precisely the attitude of mind of those who look upon a person's home as some sort of privilege for him. They regard the average person with a roof over his head as being privileged. That is the attitude of mind which created this problem.
If we can get rid of this sort of feeling we may be able to make a reasonable contribution towards the solution of the problem. Many a person believes that the house in which his father lived, and his father before that lived in, is his home. He looks upon it in those simple terms and calls it "our house". Such people have made a great contribution, through different generations, in paying for the original cost of the house—by way of rent and repairs—over and over again. This House should acknowledge that. That is why I hope that all sensible Members of the House will not oppose the


Clause. It guarantees a sense of decency in a Bill which we urgently require.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) was quite right. Why have this hereditary principle for tenants which is now being proclaimed by the Labour Party only for the second succession? Why not recognise successions indefinitely, "even unto the third and fourth generation"—I do not know whether I ought to complete that quotation—"of them that hate me"? Why not, in the new principle proclaimed by the Liberal Party, disregard altogether the owner's right to property?
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was about to quote something from the report of the Committee proceedings, which, I imagine, was a quotation from a statement of mine—

Mr. MacColl: No, mine.

Mr. Graham Page: I am glad to hear that. I recollect that I raised in Committee the point about the unmarried daughter whose two parents had died, but I raised it in connection with the

basic protection provisions of the Bill. There was an anomaly there, in that her occupation followed after a protected tenancy, and, therefore, she was not protected.

But that was an entirely different point. I should not like to think that, by raising that point, I had put the present Clause into the mind of the Government. The existing law as to the first succession has stood for 45 years, since the 1920 Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said, one hard case does not make good law. He put forward a very clear argument to show how this would cause grave injustice to owners after a period in which the house had passed from one member of the tenant's family to another.

I do not want to detain the House any longer on the Clause. The arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn were unanswerable. I hope that the House will divide on the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 135.

Division No. 219.]
AYES
[11.57 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ford, Ben
Lubbock, Eric


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Freeson, Reginald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Armstrong, Ernest
Galpern, Sir Myer
McBride, Neil


Atkinson, Norman
Garrett, W. E.
McCann, J.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Garrow, A.
MacColl, James


Baxter, William
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
McGuire, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, George (Rutherglen)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Binns, John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marion, Simon (Bootle)


Bishop, E. S.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Manuel, Archie


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mapp, Charles


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
May hew, Christopher


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hannan, William
Mellish, Robert


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, J. J.


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hazell, Bert
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Holman, Percy
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Buchanan, Richard
Hooson, H. E.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Carmichael, Neil
Horner, John
Murray, Albert


Coleman, Donald
Howie, W.
Neal, Harold


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Norwood, Christopher


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
O'Malley, Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Colin
Orme, Stanley


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Oswald Thomas


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Padley, Walter


Dell, Edmund
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Doig, Peter
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parkin, B. T.


Edelman, Maurice
Jones, T. w. (Merioneth)
Pavitt, Laurence


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kelley, Richard
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Ennals, David
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pentland, Norman


Ensor, David
Ledger, Ron
Perry, Ernest G.


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Popplewell, Ernest


Fernyhough, E.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Probert, Arthur


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rankin, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rees, Merlyn




Reynolds, G. W.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Symonds, J. B.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)
Taverne, Dick
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Rose, Paul B.
Thorpe, Jeremy
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rowland, Christopher
Tinn, James
Winterbottom, R. E.


Sheldon, Robert
Tomney, Frank
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Varley, Eric G.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin
Zilliacus, K.


Silkin, John (Deptford)
Walden, Brian (Ail Saints)



Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Watkins, Tudor
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Grey.


Small, William
Weitzman, David





NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Murton, Oscar


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Neave, Airey


Astor, John
Goodhart, Philip
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Awdry, Daniel
Coodhew, Victor
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Balniel, Lord
Gower, Raymond
Peel, John


Batsford, Brian
Grant-Ferris, R.
Percival, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Peyton, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pym, Francis


Bingham, R. M.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Blaker, Peter
Hay, John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hendry, Forbes
Scott-Hopkins, James


Braine, Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Stainton, Keith


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Hirst, Geoffrey
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Iremonger, T. L.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Buck, Antony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Talbot, John E.


Campbell, Gordon
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Cole, Norman
Kirk, Peter
Walder, David (High Peak)


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Corfield, F. V.
Lambton, Viscount
Wall, Patrick


Costain, A. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Walters, Dennis


Crawley, Aidan
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Webster, David


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Longden, Gilbert
Whitelaw, William


Curran, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Dance, James
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Maginnis, John E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.




Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Wise, A. R.


Doughty, Charles
Mathew, Robert
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Drayson, G. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. c.
Wylie, N. R.


Errington, Sir Eric
Meyer, Sir Anthony



Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Farr, John
Mitchell, David
Mr. MacArthur and


Foster, Sir John
More, Jasper
Mr. Dudley Smith.

Clause added to the Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.
I make this Motion for the conventional purpose of eliciting from the Government what their intentions are. We have already done a substantial day's work, which has, of course, been devoted to the Government's business: we have been

dealing with a number of the new Clauses and Amendments which the Government have put down. It would be for the convenience of the House to know what the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are, whether, following a fairly protracted sitting last night, it is his intention to repeat it, or whether he considers that this would be a convenient point at which to break off, to resume our deliberations tomorrow.

Mr. Crossman: The progress seems to me to have been quite satisfactory. These have all been important discussions. Three at least of the main issues are now behind us. What we have got through is greater in quality than in quantity. As the right hon. Gentleman said, they have been Government proposals, improved, I do not deny, by the House. Now we have got these behind us, and I have every hope that when we have got the rest of the new Clauses behind us and get to the Bill itself the excellent work on the new Clauses will have effect on the speed with which we proceed with the Clauses of the Bill itself.
What we have agreed we need to do is to get the Bill completed by seven or eight o'clock on Wednesday afternoon—this afternoon. It is for the convenience of the House, really, whether we run right through or have a break. What we do will depend, of course, on the speed with which we get on. I have every hope, therefore, that as we proceed we shall be able to go a little faster—in terms of quantity—without destroying quality. I intend to proceed till we get a substantial way through the Bill so that we keep to the timetable and complete the Report stage as agreed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that it is necessary for me to make something quite clear. No doubt by a slip of the tongue, the right hon. Gentleman suggested we had agreed to get the Bill by a certain hour this afternoon, Wednesday—or, indeed, at any time today. That, of course, is not the case. It is our intention, and the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that we have carried it out, not unduly to prolong the discussion of the Bill. He himself has acknowledged that we have had very good discussions so far. But there is a great deal of work still before us.
The Government have put down no fewer than 60 new Clauses and Amendments, many of which undoubtedly improve the Bill. But the mere labour of putting them, apart from any discussion on them, does mean that, inevitably, they will consume a certain amount of time. There are then the Amendments which my hon. Friends have tabled. This is an inevitable consequence of having a

measure like this in Standing Committee, a proposal which was against our wishes. Hon. Members who, otherwise, would have had a chance of putting their constituents' point of view in Committee, have taken the only opportunity open to them and put their Amendments on Report.
If the right hon. Gentleman insists, and his majority persists, of course he can take the proceedings of the Bill right through the night. If he does that it will certainly not deter us from doing our duty in giving the Bill the proper examination which it needs. Not only does it affect intimately the lives of a great mass of our fellow countrymen, but it was, when it was originally brought in, probably the worst drafted Bill seen in this Parliament.
We have improved the Bill in some small measure, and there are a great many further improvements to be made either in darkness or in daylight, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes. The matter lies with him and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Motion, by leave, withdrawn?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I wished to intervene.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member persists he knows that the Motion cannot be withdrawn.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(APPOINTMENT OF RENT TRIBUNAL BY PRESIDENT OF RENT ASSESSMENT PANEL.)

(1) Where a tribunal constituted under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946 acts for an area (whether consisting of one or more districts in which that Act is in force) wholly comprised in the area for which a panel is formed under Schedule 2 to this Act the Minister may direct the president of the panel to exercise on behalf of the Minister the power to appoint the chairman and other members of the tribunal and any person to act in the place of a member during the member's absence or incapacity.

(2) A person appointed by the president of a panel by virtue of a direction under this section shall be selected by the president from


the panel; and while the direction is in force section 3 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 (appointment of chairman) shall not apply to the tribunal, but the president shall appoint as chairman or person to act as chairman of the tribunal either himself or one of the other members of the panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I mentioned this Clause in the discussion on the previous Clause. This is the Clause which deals with the appointment of rent tribunals by the president of the rent assessment panel. I need only say about this Clause that it enables us to see to it, where it is thought necessary, that the rent tribunal that deals with furnished house rents can be appointed by the president of the rent assessment panel.
I think that it is clear that in the long run, legislation dealing with furnished lettings will probably be integrated with that dealing with unfurnished lettings. This would be far too big a job on this occasion. But we have felt it necessary to integrate the staffing of the two.
Subsection (1) of the Clause enables the Minister, in suitable areas, to delegate to the president of the rent assessment panel his function of appointing the chairman and members. Subsection (2) requires the president to make all such appointments from among members of the panel and the appointment of the chairman, or reserve chairman, from among those members of the panel whom the Lord Chancellor has appointed.
The result will be that we can make sure that when, for instance, the work of the rent assessment committee on unfurnished lettings is slacking off in a certain area, by joining the two together the work of the furnished rent tribunal can be done by the same people as deal with unfurnished rents.
This being the object of the Clause, an object which hon. Gentleman have asked us to pursue in the interests of economy of manpower and sensible organisation, I rather hope we shall be able to get it without too much criticism from an Opposition which has always been anxious, and rightly so, to see that we economise in manpower in every possible way.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Allason: It is very true that there is a need to have broadly similar arrangements for furnished and unfurnished lettings and, during the Committee stage, the right hon. Gentleman did forecast that he would like to have complete assimilation, but he added that he felt the time was not yet right. This seems to me to be certainly a step in the right direction.
The Minister feels it is necessary to make a new Clause of this, but I do not know whether that is really so. It is very valuable that he should state his intention, but is it really necessary to have a new Clause when he could obtain the same result simply by writing to the chairman of the rent tribunal and telling him to appoint the particular nominee he wishes to appoint or, alternatively, by the chairman of the rent tribunal writing to him saying, "I recommend that you take on Mr. Snodgrass as chairman of the furnished rent tribunal", and the Minister then appointing him? It is only a matter of one or two more letters and, while I agree it is a bit more work for the Ministry, it does not really seem essential to have this Clause.
I was brought up to believe that a new Clause cost the taxpayer about £100,000 and that it was, therefore, to be avoided if possible. But it may be that is an excessive figure in this case.
I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the effect of subsection (2). The Tribunals and Inquiries Act, to which the subsection refers, says, in Section 3:
(1) The chairman, or any person appointed to act as chairman, of any of the tribunals to which this subsection applies shall (without prejudice to any statutory provisions as to qualifications) be selected by the appropriate authority from a panel of persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
As I understand it, subsection (2) of the new Clause says precisely that, and it goes on to say that Section 3 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act shall not apply. In other words, it does not apply, and then precisely the same words do apply in the subsection. It seems a little peculiar, and it would be interesting to have some explanation of subsection (2).
Finally, I notice in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act that whereas it is the Lord Chancellor who approves the panel, in Scotland it is the Lord President of the Court of Session. It appears from subsection (2), however, that although the Tribunals and Inquiries Act wording is followed the Lord Chancellor is substituted. Is it the case that the Lord Chancellor appoints the panel in Scotland, as would appear from the new Clause?

Mr. Graham Page: This is a beneficial Clause, but we should get confirmation of something that was said in Committee. Subsection (2) refers to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, and says that Section 3 of that Act shall be excluded. But Section 3 has never applied to the Bill as it stands at present; in fact, the Tribunals and Inquiries Act does not apply to the Bill at all, anywhere. Therefore, under this Clause we are assuming that the Minister will make an order applying the Tribunals and Inquiries Act to the rent assessment committee as well as to the furnished rent tribunals.
It seems rather extraordinary to enact that another Act shall not apply when it still does not apply but may yet apply on an order of the Minister hereafter, but I think that that is the result of this new Clause. Perhaps the Minister would like again to confirm that he intends to make an order under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, making that Act apply to the rent assessment committee as well as to the furnished rent tribunals.

Mr. Crossman: The explanation of what may seem to be the confusion is that the Clause deals with the 1946 Act. As the Clause achieves the same object as the 1958 Act, we do not have to work through the panel.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister has not confirmed that he intends to make an order applying the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, to the rent assessment committee.

Mr. Crossman: It is not necessary to do so, because the Clause achieves the same object without applying that Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(ANTICIPATORY POSSESSION PROCEEDINGS.)

(1) Not more than three months before the date upon which landlord or an owner (as defined in section 26(4) of this Act) will be entitled to recover possession of a dwelling-house from a tenant or an occupier thereof he may commence procedings in the court against the tenant or occupier as the case may be in order to establish his future right to recover possession of the dwelling-houses and the court may make an order for possession suspended until the due termination of the tenancy or of the right of occupation.

(2) The costs of proceedings under this section shall be borne by the landlord or the owner if the proceedings are undefended; if the proceedings are defended the order as to the payment of the costs thereof shall be in the discretion of the court.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Bill expands the field of control, this time calling it regulation, which postpones the right of an owner to possession of his property. When a right to possession has arisen, the landlord will still, under the Bill, have the delay of having to apply to the court for a possession order. He will still have to go through the court procedure to get an order for possession, following on, in due course, with a warrant for possession, before his right to possession can be exercised. He is left in doubt and anxiety as to whether or not he will get possession because, as the law stands, he cannot start proceedings for possession until there has been a breach by the tenant; that is, that the tenant has overstayed his term. The landlord has the right to possession when he commences the action.
The first object of this Clause is to relieve that uncertainty of whether the landlord will be able to exercise his right to possession at an early time after that right arises. If he has to wait until the tenant is a trespasser—is holding over after the end of his term—he is kept out of possession for whatever period it takes to get the case before the court and for the court to make its order for possession, which may yet be suspended for some weeks.
This applies particularly in regard to the new Clauses that we have earlier today embodied in the Bill. There is, for example, the new Clause dealing with


the owner occupier who has been in residence and rents his property for a certain time—telling the tenant that he will require it at a certain time—and then finds the tenant still in possession. That Clause gives that owner occupier the right to immediate possession but, under the present procedure, he will not get immediate possession if the tenant chooses to hold over. He may get possession after a period of weeks, and be left in that uncertainty whether he can make arrangements to move into his own house on the date on which the tenancy terminates or whether he will have to wait for some weeks before he can move in.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is not my hon. Friend being too kind about this? If the tenant wanted to be really difficult, it could take some months, could it not, to go through the legal procedures?

Mr. Graham Page: The learned Attorney-General has assured us that this can be done in an average of 11 days, to get the case before the court under the expedition procedure. But I wanted to come to this as my second point.
I think that the Attorney-General is too optimistic, and that the Clause, if it is accepted, will avoid disorganisation of court procedure by the application of that expedition procedure. I say that the Attorney-General is too optimistic because he bases his optimism on 7,000 cases brought during the first quarter of the year, 90 of which were subject to application for expedition.
This was at a time when the expedition procedure was not well known to the legal profession, or, in fact, to the many laymen who bring possession cases without the assistance of a lawyer, and it was to be expected that the applications for expedition would be very few. I imagine that after the publicity given to our debates on this subject in Committee and on the Floor of the House, many more will apply for expedition.
Let us suppose that even 50 per cent. of those 7,000 cases a quarter were subject to an expedition application. Surely the more that apply the more difficult it will be for the courts to deal with these cases, and the less expeditious will each case be. We shall be back again to the position of being unable to get a possession case before

the judge or the registrar in country county courts for a matter of months.
It is quite different in the case of county courts in London, or in large towns, where they sit continuously and where it is not difficult to get an application before the judge or the registrar and have it heard in a few days. But we have said again and again from this side that it is difficult to get expedition in the country county courts where the judge is moving around the circuit and is not sitting every day.
When this expedition procedure becomes well known and used, I cannot see how the county courts are to accept applications of this sort without causing complete chaos in their other work. All their other work would have to be set aside.
If we had a system whereby the landlord entitled to possession could ask the court a month, two months, or three months ahead for a declaratory judgment that he would be entitled to possession at the time the tenancy ends, then the landlord would be relieved of this uncertainty as to whether he was going to get possession on the due date, the dislocation of court procedure by thousands of applications for expedition could be avoided, and this would all be at no harm to anyone and would bring the county courts into a very useful service to the public. If we adopt this form of anticipatory procedure, what harm can this do to anyone?
I appreciate that it is a novel idea in law to be able to take proceedings in order to establish a future right, but I think a novel idea is very necessary in the circumstances in which we are placed by the Bill. By extending so much the area of control and making it necessary for so many possession cases to be brought in future, unless we can make arrangements for anticipating a possession order in this way and anticipating the end of the tenancy I am sure there will be chaos in the courts. There will be a perfectly ordinary form of procedure in the courts except that the court will be asked to decide whether or not, at the end of a tenancy—ending not more than three months, probably not more than two months hence—the landlord will be entitled to possession. He would then be given a possession order to take


effect on the date of the end of the tenancy. He would then be able to obtain his warrant for possession from the court and to execute the warrant so that he could get possession on the due date.
12.30 a.m.
For those landlords who may be unnecessarily anxious and through an abundance of caution take these anticipatory proceedings against the tenant when the tenant intends genuinely to go out at the end of the tenancy, subsection (2) of the new Clause would take effect. The landlord himself would bear the costs for his peace of mind, if one can put it that way. If he takes these proceedings and they are undefended and he therefore gets judgment for possession on a future date a few weeks hence, it is right that he should pay the costs of the proceedings. If the proceedings were defended the award as to costs would be as usual within the discretion of the court.
Although this is a novel suggestion, I am sure that it is very necessary as an adjunct to the extension of the regulation of tenancies and one which will relieve hardship which otherwise might fall on owners whom we have recognised, particularly in the new Clause accepted yesterday, are entitled to immediate possession. It will relieve their uncertainty, the hardship which they might suffer, and relieve congestion in the courts.

Dame Joan Vickers: I have not spoken so far in the debate, but I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for following up a novel suggestion raised in Committee and for putting it in excellent form. The Clause should be supported because of the time it takes to take a case to the court. I understand that some courts in Cornwall meet only once a month, so there could be long delay in obtaining possession.
We want to see that houses are not left vacant when people go abroad. I should have thought this Clause would commend itself to the Government because it would encourage those going abroad to let their houses. Many are anxious to take up service overseas. I thought it was the policy of the Government, through the Department dealing with overseas aid, to influence teachers,

those with technical knowledge, doctors, and so on, to go overseas and give a period of service. During that period they would want to let their houses unfurnished. Many find it better to store their furniture or to take some of it with them.
I hope that the Minister will give favourable consideration to this suggestion. In Committee, I brought to his notice the fact that at present a number of people who have worked abroad send back their wives and children in the belief that when they return they will get possession of their homes. They often have to go to relations in the meantime and wait for the husband to take further action on their behalf.
The suggestion put forward in this Clause would be of great assistance to the people I have mentioned and it would also to those whom we discussed earlier who are to retire and know that they have to leave their accommodation on retirement. They would be able to give this very adequate notice to their tenants. This would cover the point which the Minister said earlier was worrying him on new Clause 11. I suggest to him that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has found an excellent way of settling this problem and I hope that the Clause will meet with the approval of the Minister.

Mr. Evelyn King: No one could have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) advocating this Clause without realising the considerable relief that it would bring to the problem. Kindness to the tenant and the landlord is the idea behind the Bill and the Clause achieves that. There is nothing more unkind than uncertainty. If after the legal lease has concluded there is uncertainty week after week and perhaps month after month as to whether or not there is to be an eviction, that is most unkind. If it is possible, before the conclusion of that legal agreement, to establish once and for all whether possession is to be given to the landlord, that would be by far the best conclusion to this problem and would bring peace of mind to all sides.
I have always felt, throughout the debates to which I have listened, that there has been an under-assessment of the


time which must elapse between the arising of the dispute and the decision. We have to bear in mind that from the date on which the tenant should get out he has to contact a solicitor, correspond with him and take advice. It may be a matter of weeks before the case even reaches the court. Even if we accept the advice of the Attorney-General, who has mentioned several periods but mostly 11 days in which to get a verdict, it must be remembered that a court commonly gives six weeks before possession is given. Therefore, it may be up to three months before finality is achieved.
Another problem which the House has not discussed, but which may come up on later Amendments, concerns the employee whose employer is also his landlord. For the first time he is made subject to this sort of legislation. There may be a case of a school master who, because of something connected with his morals, or drunkenness, is dismissed. It is highly undesirable that such a person should remain on the premises. There may be an example of a person holding a position in a mental hospital who is clearly unfit to do so and who should get out at once. Or there may be a drunken caretaker of a block of flats. It is highly desirable that as soon as notice of dismissal is given action should be taken to ensure that he vacates his accommodation, and the sooner the steps are taken the better.
There are other Amendments under which that particular problem can be discussed. It is a real problem, particularly where the employee may be a person holding considerable responsibility and apparently quite unfit, even for the shortest period of time, to remain in the house from which he conducts his job. This Clause would be a very useful approach to this kind of problem.

Sir A. Meyer: It is rather a pity we could not have taken this new Clause earlier in the proceedings because if, as I feel sure they will, the Government accept it, it would have shortened the discussion that we had on new Clause No. 11.
This seems to be a procedure of beautiful simplicity. Provided that the Government accept the Clause it will meet a very large part of the case of the people whom I and my hon. Friend the Member

for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) have in mind. These are the people serving overseas, civil servants and so on, who know a certain time ahead that they will want to come back to their own homes. Using this splendid piece of mechanism these people will be able to file a claim so that when they come back the time will be due.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Running through all our debates here, and in Committee, there has been, from the Government side, an attempt to put such a bite upon the landlord as to make this, in their estimation, a fairer system. I believe that without the support and encouragement of the landlord we shall not make the housing situation better, but a good deal worse.
This Clause, which in no way weakens what the Government are trying to do, could prove to be useful in showing the landlord that the Government were not trying to be unreasonably tough. It would show to the landlord who believes that he has a genuine grievance that he could go to law. I would have thought that the Government would be anxious to accept this Clause since, as has been pointed out, a situation could build up in the courts, as the expedition procedure becomes more widely known, where there will be something of a logjam and this would act as a buffer between what might be a serious blockage at a later stage.
The discussion we had yesterday on new Clause No. 11, dealing with people who want a house for their retirement is exactly the point covered by new Clause No. 7. Such persons would have a three-month grace period in which to set the machinery in action, to make certain that when their retirement falls due the legal obstacles have been overcome. The Clause does not weaken the Bill, but improves it considerably. Further, it gives landlords an opportunity of seeing that the Government are not always biased in favour of the tenant, but realise that the landlord is a vital unit in the property market, as was proved by Milner Holland, who said that the private landlord had a very real rôle to play. The Clause would give encouragement to private landlords up and down the country.

12.45 a.m.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Sir Anthony Meyer), described the new Clause as one of beautiful simplicity. Alas, it is wholly impracticable. The fact that it is new does not mean that for that reason we on this side of the House do not approve of it. We are all in favour of constructive novelty. To call it new is a massive understatement. It is a revolutionary proposal so far as the law of the country is concerned. It involves nothing less than establishing a right before that right has arisen, which is a novel conception to the law.
The new Clause, as I understand it, is not limited in its terms to lettings for a fixed term, but it is difficult to see how it could possibly apply to any other cases than fixed terms. As to periodic tenancies, the effective termination of a periodic tenancy depends upon the service of a valid notice to quit. In a case where a notice to quit of less than three months is required to end a tenancy, it is certainly not clear to me whether, under the Clause, the landlord would have to wait until he had served such a notice before applying for an order for possession under the new Clause.

Mr. Graham Page: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making heavy weather of this. The intention is to establish a future right. If the future right has not yet arisen by the service of notice, of course the landlord could not bring the action. Once he had served his four weeks' notice, however, he would be able to establish his future right. In that case, therefore, he would bring it within a month before the end of the tenancy.

The Attorney-General: As I see it, the establishment of this conception of a future right can only be effectively done in the case of a letting for a fixed term. As a proposal, it would create difficulties in regard to all kinds of tenancies—for instance, service tenancies and occupations, which are brought to an end automatically by the terms of the employment. The real deficiency of the Clause, however, is that it seeks to assert a right, namely, a right to possess, before that right has arisen. I cannot see any court or

legal system giving countenance to so academic an exercise.
The justification of what is proposed is the alleged delay and difficulty in obtaining a county court order for possession. I do not wish to weary the House with a repetition of the confidence with which I have stated earlier in the debate on Report that the fears of right hon. and hon. Members opposite of a log jam of work in the county courts will prove to be as unfounded as similar fears that were expressed during the debates on the Protection from Eviction Act. In that instance we were similarly warned that the courts would be choked with applications for possession orders and that long delays would result. It has not been so.
The judges and registrars have done their work admirably. The procedures for expediting the applications for the hearing of summonses for possession have worked extremely well. The power given to the registrars to make such orders, the transfer of cases from one county court to another and the reduction in the time through the procedure for reducing the period allowed for delivery of defence have all resulted in the courts being able to deal with these matters in a matter of days rather than of weeks.
In those circumstances, the fears that have been expressed have proved as unfounded in the past as, I have every reason to believe, they will prove unfounded in the future. Therefore, this proposal is not justified by those fears, it is impracticable and it is a wholly unwarranted and unattractive academic exercise and anathema to any system of law.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) intervened to say, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made extremely heavy weather of this Clause. His objections appear to be twofold. First, that it is new and revolutionary That comes a little surprisingly from a member of this progressive Government, poised for resolute action, anxious to apply the new thought, and all the rest of it. It is, to say the least, a little odd.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman kept on repeating that it was impractical. If that were true, that would be a powerful objection, but he gave no reasons other than his own assertion for


that view. In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's office and his knowledge of the law we take that assertion seriously, but I do not think that he can ask the House to reject a new Clause of this sort on that mere assertion.
Nor, indeed, do the difficulties which the right hon. and learned Gentleman put up seem to be insuperable, or even, if I may say so with respect, substantial. We are accustomed—there is the analogy of proceeiing by injunction when a right is threatened—to taking proceedings in advance to protect our rights, and there is no reason to believe that a court could not, and should not, contemplate steps taken for that purpose.
I agree that this procedure would be particularly applicable, particularly helpful, in the case of a let for a fixed term. I think that that is the easiest example, and it is precisely that class of case in which it would also be the most useful. This is the case, such as we discussed earlier, of the person abroad for two or three years on an appointment, and who lets for that period, but has some reason to believe that his tenant may not be prepared to move. This is the case of the person expecting retirement and wanting to move to the house that he has bought for that purpose, but has reason to believe that the tenant may not move. But, as my hon. Friend said, this is most applicable to a fixed term. Notice to quit would be served, and would be followed with these proceedings.
I do not think that the Attorney-General addressed his mind to what is a serious proposition, and a proposition which, if accepted, would diminish many of the evils of the Bill, and reduce many of the apprehensions which people feel about it. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have done the House a great service if he had appreciated that there was a real and effective purpose behind the new Clause, and had sought, if he saw practical difficulties in it—which he did not disclose—to assist the House by dealing with them, rather than putting them up as an objection to a procedure of this sort.
The Clause provides protection against abuse. If the proceedings are undefended, the costs will fall on the applicant. Obviously, that will be the case, but if an attempt were made wrongly to use it this would be a very proper

disincentive to abuse of this procedure. If the case were contested, costs would, as the Clause provides, follow the normal procedure of going with the event and being in the discretion of the court. There is, therefore, adequate protection against misuse.
The argument for the Clause does not turn on the issue to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, namely, whether there is likely to be what he called a log jam in the courts. This proposal goes beyond that, because even if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, and the court procedures work rapidly, there are none the less cases where having to wait for the court procedures to be completed imposes real hardship. I mention the case of a man returning from abroad with nowhere to go except to his own house. He wants to get himself and his family into that house. It will be a real hardship to him if there is a delay of a few days while he goes to court, a few more days while he gets the order, and perhaps a further day or two before the order is effective.
The Clause is intended to deal with this situation. I regard it as a very unhappy indication of the Government's general attitude that not only did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not accept it, but that he did not give any indication whatever even of sympathy with its object, still less any intention to try to use his great legal authority to try, if necessary, to put it into a more nearly perfect shape. I hope that in those circumstances my right hon. and hon. Friends will feel that they should press the matter.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I do not want unduly to delay the House, but I must make a few observations in support of my learned Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). This is a problem of the West Country. Apart from Service people coming back from a period abroad, many Cornish people go abroad to work. It is said that wherever there is a hole in the ground one will find a Cornishman at the bottom. Many engineers and nonferrous miners go abroad for two or three years and then return to their homes in Cornwall. It is common for them to let their houses while they are away and


also for them to experience difficulty in regaining possession when they return.
Any idea that it is possible to obtain a possession order in a few days from a country county court is utterly wrong. There is considerable delay and it is difficult for people to get these matters dealt with quickly. The Clause appeals to me as reasonable, and I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Corfield: I must take up the challenge which the Attorney-General has thrown down. He dismissed the Clause on the ground that it is revolutionary and academic. But we are dealing with a situation which has been produced by relieving people of any obligation to fulfil their contracts, however solemnly entered into, and whatever the danger caused to the other party. As my right hon. Friend has suggested, evils will be created, however great may be the social necessity for this principle.
People will come home from abroad with large families and will literally have nowhere else to go. The concept that people should stick to solemn contracts is not abhorrent to many systems of law, including the common law.

Mr. Harold Lever: Did those considerations move the hon. Member when the previous Government were in office, in relation to the Resale Prices Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): If the hon. Member answers that, he will be out of order.

Mr. Corfield: I am glad that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker,

because I should have found difficulty in answering that question. I suggest that, in a sense, we are dealing with a situation which has been created by cutting across quite respectable and honoured concepts of the common law. It is not unreasonable to look for unusual remedies to remedy the evil that this may create.

It is no good describing this as academic. It is a practical problem which we must deal with, and it requires a practical remedy. I suggest that my hon. Friends have put forward at least the nub of a perfectly practical remedy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that there might be difficulties in respect of service tenancies and periodic tenancies, but those difficulties can be overcome with a little ingenuity in drafting. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he has not given a convincing reason why this evil should not arise. In fact, I heard of a case only three days ago where somebody came home from abroad with four children and expected to obtain possession of his house, but, at the last moment, the tenant prayed in aid the provisions of the temporary Act.

I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman to think again and to consider whether, with suitable Amendments, this is not the right answer—and, if it is not, to put forward something which is, and not to dismiss the problem as of no importance.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 152.

Division No. 220.]
AYES
[1.0 a.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Campbell, Gordon
Eyre, Reginald


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Carlisle, Mark
Farr, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Foster, Sir John


Astor, John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Awdry, Daniel
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Balniel, Lord
Cole, Norman
Glover, Sir Douglas


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bell, Ronald
Corfield, F. V.
Goodhart, Philip


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Costain, A. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Biffen, John
Crawley, Aidan
Gower, Raymond


Siggs-Davison, John
Crotthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Grant-Ferris, R.


Bingham, R. M.
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)


Blaker, Peter
Curran, Charles
Gurden, Harold


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Dance, James
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Braine, Bernard
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Doughty, Charles
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Drayson, G. B.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Buck, Antony
Errington, Sir Eric
Hendry, Forbes




Higgins, Terence L.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hirst, Geoffrey
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Talbot, John E.


Iremonger, T. L.
Mitchell, David
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Dame Joan


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Murton, Oscar
Walder, David (High Peak)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neave, Airey
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wall, Patrick


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Walters, Dennis


Kirk, Peter
Peel, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Kitson, Timothy
Percival, Ian
Webster, David


Lambton, Viscount
Peyton, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Whitelaw, William


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pym, Francis
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Longden, Gilbert
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Loveys, Walter H.
Renton, Rt. Hn, Sir David
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wylie, N. R.


McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Younger, Hn. George


Maginnis, John E.
Scott-Hopkins, James



Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mathew, Robert
Stainton, Keith
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. More.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stanley, Hn. Richard





NOES


Abse, Leo
Heffer, Eric S.
Pentland, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hoosofi, H. E.
Perry, Ernest G.


Armstrong, Ernest
Horner, John
Popplewell, Ernest


Atkinson, Norman
Howie, W.
Probert, Arthur


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Baxter, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rees, Merlyn


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Jackson, Colin
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Binns, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bishop, E. S.
Johnson, carol (Lewisham, s.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Boardman, H.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rose, Paul B.


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Kelley, Richard
Rowland, Christopher


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Sheldon, Robert


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Ledger, Ron
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N' c' tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Buchanan, Richard
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Carmichael, Neil
Lewis, Ron (Carilsle)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Coleman, Donald
Lomas, Kenneth
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Conlan, Bernard
Lubbock, Eric
Small, William


Crawshaw, Richard
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
McBride, Neil
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Dalyell, Tam
MacCoil, James
Swain, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McGuire, Michael
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Taverne, Dick


Dell, Edmund
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Doig, Peter
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.

Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Manuel, Archie
Varley, Eric G.


Ennals, David
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Ensor, David
Mayhew, Christopher



Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Vardley)
Mellish, Robert
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fernyhough, E.
Mendelson, J. J.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, Tudor


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Weitzman, David


Ford, Ben
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Freeson, Reginald
Molloy, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Garrow, A.
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Murray, Albert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ginsburg, David
Noei-Baker, Francis (Swindon)



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Norwood, Christopher
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Grey, Charles
O'Malley, Brian
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Oswald, Thomas
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Padley, Walter
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Zilliacus, K.


Hannan, William
Palmer, Arthur



Harper, Joseph
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Lawson and Mr. McCann


Hazell, Bert
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

New Clause.—(REGISTERED RENT.)

Where a rent for a dwelling-house is registered under this Act the rent payable by and recoverable from the tenant for any statutory period of a regulated tenancy of the dwelling-house shall be the rent so registered.—[Sir A. Meyer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir A. Meyer: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I am sorry that the Government are not in a receptive mood to beautiful simplicity because in this Clause we have another example of beautiful simplicity to offer them. The Clause is a replacement for Clause 7, which provides, in the case of a rent for a statutory period of a regulated tenancy, that if, as a result of the ruling of the rent officer, the rent is to go down, the tenant gets the immediate benefit of the reduction in the rent, but if, on the contrary, it is decided that the rent should go up, there is to be a four-week delay.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), in Committee, used the phrase, "What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander". Unfortunately, the Government seem to have decided that if the tenant goose is entitled to apple sauce the landlord gander has to put up with "sauce diable", because the landlord, as might be expected, gets the dirty end of the stick. The object of the new Clause is to provide for equal treatment for tenant and landlord; that is to say, either a reduction in the rent or an increase in the rent has effect immediately.
It is not as if this would impose a sudden hardship on either the landlord or the tenant because, as was pointed out in Committee by the Parliamentary Secretary, there will have been fairly lengthy discussions and proceedings before the new rent is fixed, and the tenant will have plenty of warning that his rent is likely to go up, or down. I suggest that in the interests of equity, if the Minister is to make a determined effort to overcome his natural prejudice against landlords, he accepts the new Clause.

Mr. Speaker: I should have said that the implication appears to be that we are discussing with this new Clause Amendment No. 15, to leave out Clause 7.

Mr. MacColl: The history of this Clause and its principle is rather an unfortunate one. The hon. Gentleman the Member of Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) put it to the House on the basis of a piece of unreasonableness and of prejudice on the part of the Government in not having accepted his Amendment in Committee. What happened in Committee was that the Amendment was put down at very short notice. I said that I was anxious to consider it and to explore its implications. My right hon. Friend confirmed that. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) elected not to accept my assurances that I would look into it and decided on taking a decision of the Committee.
The decision of the Committee was taken, and the result was that the Amendment was defeated. Therefore, I did not feel that I was under any particular obligation to go any further in the matter, as the right hon. Gentleman had decided not to take my assurances about it.
However, I do not wish to stand on dignity about it. I think that I would not expect to receive the same treatment from the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he would have stood on his dignity. I think that I can afford not to stand on mine. I am advised that the wording of the Clause is not suitable, and probably goes a little bit too far back in time. I think there ought to be some room for a margin of notice to the tenant of an increase. I would certainly accept the principle of it, and offer to consider it, and to arrange with my noble Friends to put down an Amendment in another place to meet the point.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Naturally, we welcome the attitude that the hon. Gentleman has adopted. I am sorry that he thought it necessary to begin his speech with a rather curt reference to our proceedings in Committee. He may remember that the whole trouble arose because he was unwilling to give a firm undertaking to come forward with proposals at this stage. He was unwilling to take the line which, if I understand him aright, he is now taking.
I would like to make sure that there is no uncertainty about the position. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would confirm that his undertaking is that an


Amendment will be put down in another place. In that case, I am certain that my hon. Friend would not wish to take up any further time and would seek to withdraw.

Mr. MacColl: If the right hon. Gentleman did me the credit of listening to what I said he would know that I said precisely that I will arrange for one of my nobly Friends to put down something in another place.

Sir A. Meyer: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF HOUSE ACQUIRED FOR RETIREMENT.)

(1) Where a person who has acquired a dwelling-house for his residence in anticipation of his retirement (in this section referred to as the owner) has thereafter let the dwelling-house on a regulated tenancy and the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied, then if—

(a) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house; and
(b) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required as a residence for the owner and that the owner has retired;

the court shall make an order for possession of the dwelling-house whether or not it would have the power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933.

(2) The said conditions are—

(a) that not later than the commencement of the tenancy (or if the tenancy was created before the commencement of this Act, not later than six months after the commencement of this Act) the landlord has given notice in writing to the tenant that possession may be recovered under this section; and
(b) that the dwelling-house has not since the commencement of this Act been let on a regulated tenancy with respect to which the condition mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection was not satisfied.

(3) For the purposes of this section the definition of retirement shall be that the person complies with the conditions laid down in section 20(2)(a) of the National Insurance Act 1946.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Speaker: This Clause has already been discussed. Does the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) wish to move formally?

Motion made, and Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 146.

Division No. 221.]
AYES
[1.16 a.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Doughty, Charles
Kirk, Peter


Astor, John
Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy


Awdry, Daniel
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lambton, Viscount


Balniel, Lord
Errington, Sir Eric
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Batsford, Brian
Eyre, Reginald
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bell, Ronald
Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Foster, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert


Biffen, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Loveys, Walter H.


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Lubbock, Eric


Bingham, R. M.
Glover, Sir Douglas
MacArthur, Ian


Blaker, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Goodhew, Victor
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Gower, Raymond
Mathew, Robert


Braine, Bernard
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Maydon, Lt.-cmdr. S. L. C.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Buck, Antony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitcheil, David


Campbell, Gordon
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Murton, Oscar


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss



Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey


Cole, Norman
Hendry, Forbes
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Cooke, Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Corfield, F. V.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peel, John


Costain, A. P.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Percival, Ian


Crawley, Aidan
Hooson, H. E.
Peyton, John


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Curran, Charles
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pym, Francis


Dance, James
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David




Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Scott-Hopkins, James
Walder, David (High Peak)



Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stainton, Keith
Wall, Patrick
Wylie, N. R.


Stanley, Hn. Richard
Walters, Dennis
Younger, Hn. George


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Ward, Dame Irene



Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Webster, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Studholme, Sir Henry
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. G. Johnson Smith and


Talbot, John E.
Whitelaw, William
Mr. More.


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Hazell, Bert
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Pentland, Norman


Armstrong, Ernest
Horner, John
Perry, Ernest G.


Atkinson, Norman
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Popplewell, Ernest


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, Arthur


Baxter, William
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Rankin, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Jackson, Colin
Rees, Merlyn


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Binns, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Bishop, E. S.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Boardman, H.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Kelley, Richard
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Kerr, Dr. David (W' worth, Central)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Lawson, George
Rose, Paul B.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Ledger, Ron
Rowland, Christopher


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sheldon, Robert


Buchanan, Richard
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Carmichael, Neil
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Coleman, Donald
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Conlan, Bernard
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crawshaw, Richard
McBride, Neil
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
MacColl, James
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McGuire, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Swingler, Stephen


Dell, Edmund
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Taverne, Dick


Doig, Peter
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Manuel, Archie
Tinn, James


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mapp, Charles
Tomney, Frank


Ennals, David
Mayhew, Christopher
Varley, Eric G.


Ensor, David
Mellish, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fernyhough, E.
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Watkins, Tudor


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Weitzman, David


Ford, Ben
Molloy, William
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Garrett, W. E.
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Garrow, A.
Murray, Albert
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ginsburg, David
Norwood, Christopher
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
O'Malley, Brian
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, Charles
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Padley, Walter
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Zilliacus, K.


Hannan, William
Palmer, Arthur



Harper, Joseph
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. McCann and Mr. Howie.

New Clause.—(CONTROLLED TENANCIES IN SCOTLAND.)

The rent recoverable from the tenant of a dwelling-house in Scotland which is subject to a controlled tenancy shall be increased on the commencement of this Act and on each anniversary thereof by 25 per cent. or such lesser proportion as may be necessary until the recoverable rent equals the gross annual value of the dwelling-house.—[Mr. Hendry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I have here a letter from a constituent which seems almost incredible. He writes:
I am the landlord of a flat above my own home and have just given the tenant a receipt for a half year's rent. The sum involved is £8 11s., a total of £17 2s. per year.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there anyone from the Ministry concerned to deal with this matter?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): rose—

Mr. Speaker: Physical presence relieves me of the obligation of pointing out that that does not raise a point of order.

Mr. Hendry: My constituent has written this letter completely on his own initiative. It is a long letter and I do not propose to read it all, but on the following page he says:
There are six habitable rooms in the tenant's flat.
Here we have a flat with six rooms, a bathroom and all modern conveniences, for which the half-yearly rent is £8 11s.
Incredible though it may seem, that is something not uncommon in Scotland, where the level of rents of houses controlled under the old Rent Acts is quite fantastically low. Indeed, when one compares rents in Scotland with the corresponding rents in the south of England, one almost imagines that the half-yearly rent is a week's rent by English standards, and that the whole year's rent corresponds to the English monthly rent.
These very low rents are due principally to historical causes, with which I need not weary the House. Suffice it to say that in Scotland formerly the landlord had to pay part of the local rates, and as the local rates went up year after year between the wars the amount of rent retainable by the landlord became less and less. After the last war that process continued even faster, and things reached such a pass in 1956 that Parliament took steps to change the incidence of rates so that the whole of the rates became payable by the tenant and the landlord knew where he was, but by that time the retainable rent receivable by the landlord had fallen to such a very low level that in some cases the effect was a negative rent retained by the landlord. Such a ridiculous situation had to be dealt with. Since then very small increases have been retainable by the landlords where they have carried out certain repairs, but still the level of rents is very tiny indeed. In many cases the rent which is received by a landlord is not sufficient to pay the very minimum of repairs necessary for these houses.
1.30 a.m.
I propose this Clause not in the interests of landlords, because, after all, with tiny rents like that there would be very little benefit to the landlord from a very small increase such as the 25 per cent. which I have suggested, but in the interests of the tenant himself—[Laughter]—so that the house occupied by him will at least be kept in some semblance of repair. Hon. Members opposite may laugh at my concern for the tenant, but it is obvious that we must have a great deal of concern for the tenant when we look at the actual level of rents and the effect of the Clause which I am moving.
In February of this year the Scottish Development Department published the results of a survey, made under their supervision, of the rents of controlled houses in Scotland. It was a voluntary survey, and it was done in conjunction with the National Federation of Property Owners in Scotland. It did not cover the whole of Scotland, but it covered the greater part, and covered 56,740 houses which, by any reckoning, is a very substantial sample of houses in Scotland.
As this is a Government publication, we are entitled to look at it to find out what the effect of my proposals would be. We find here that taking all controlled rents contained in the survey, which includes three of the major cities of Scotland and a considerable number of counties, the average rent of those let houses subject to control under the old Rent Acts was £15 15s. 5d. per annum, an incredible figure. If we look at the average gross annual value of these houses we find that the figure is £27 16s. 7d. per annum, so that, obviously, if the rent were increased to the full extent of the gross annual value the rent would still be ridiculously small and would barely suffice to cover the cost of necessary repairs.
These houses are rapidly going into decay. Even a small increase in the retainable rent would be of very great advantage to the tenants who have to live in them, because what has been happening in the past is that landlords have been maintaining these houses in repair out of their own pockets at their own expense, and that is a process that can only go on for a very short time.

Mr. John Robertson: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House the age and the size and the amenities of these houses? After all, he has only told half the story.

Mr. Hendry: If only the hon. Member were patient, he would hear this. I can understand his anxiety. These houses vary in age considerably, but they were all built prior to the First World War. That does not necessarily make them very old houses. Some of these houses have been built in the first decade of this century and are well-built stone houses, with several apartments, hot and cold water, bathrooms and all modern conveniences.
There are throughout Scotland modern tenement houses of that sort rented at about £20 per annum. They were rented at about £20 per annum in 1914 and are still rented at about that figure because of the historic incidence of local rates. In his own constituency the hon. Member will find modern houses with three or four bedrooms have rents at that sort of level. There are many of them in the City of Dundee, which I know personally.
I will try to help the hon. Member further by speaking about the type of these houses. They vary a great deal and from his knowledge of rateable value in Scotland he may be able to identify them. In the Scottish Development Department's survey they have been put into six categories. Those categories are: houses with a gross annual value ranging from nothing to £15 per annum; between £16 and £20; between £21 and £25; between £26 and £30; between £31 and £40; £41 and over. The hon. Member will know that an old house with a rateable value of over £41 is by all accounts a good house.
There have been several cases in Scotland recently where luxury houses have been the subject of rent appeals. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) could tell us something about them. Every Scottish hon. Member will appreciate that a house with a rateable value of over £41 is by any standard a good house. Houses in the highest category in the survey number 8,559, 15·1 per cent. of the total. The average rent of these houses, which were controlled under the old Rent Acts, with

a rateable value over £41, is £26 19s. 10d., which is ludicrously small.

Mr. Orme: Can the hon. Member help me? I am looking at the Clause to see where the 25 per cent. increase is to be linked to repairs. Where is there any compulsion on the landlord to spend some of the money on repairs?

Mr. Hendry: If the hon. Member had any knowledge of management of property he would know that it is impossible to maintain a house in Scotland, England or anywhere, in a state of repair if the rent is in the region of £26 19s. 10d. per annum. I should have thought that anyone with experience in this matter would have known that.
Returning to the category of the 8,000 houses mentioned in the survey, the highest category with an average rent of £26 19s. 10d., the average gross annual value is £51 0s. 3d.—less than £1 a week, less than the hire of a television set. Many people in Scotland are paying less in rent of a house than rent for a television set. If these rents were increased only to the gross annual value, the average rent would be less than £1 a week. I admit that in certain circumstances there might be hardship and certainly a shock if the rents were increased in one jump to the gross annual value, even if the increase were only from £26 to £51 a year. I suggest that it would be reasonable if it were increased in steps to something like a fair rent and the steps I propose are of 25 per cent. increases. That would be over about four years, but not necessarily over four years because it is not entirely a matter of a 100 per cent. increase to bring the rent to what the local assessor considered a fair rent. There is a statutory duty on the assessor to fix a fair rent in these circumstances. I suggest that if that were done this horrible situation of vast quantities of houses in Scotland falling into disrepair would cease and the standard of housing there would improve accordingly.
The House will see that this is not a serious increase under any circumstances and would be fair to the landlords and the tenants. The question of reaching a fair rent has already been discussed on another new Clause dealing with the proposed arrangements for converting a controlled house into a regulated one. The Minister himself moved the new Clause which, under certain conditions, allows an


increase of 15 per cent. per annum. It was proposed that this should only be done in certain circumstances and by order. The Minister argued cogently against many of his hon. Friends that 15 per cent. was reasonable. I suggest that if 15 per cent. per annum up to the gross annual value is reasonable in England and Wales, my proposal that there should be a 25 per cent. increase per annum in Scotland is more than reasonable.
I believe that as a result of the deliberations in Committee the Under-Secretary has a certain amount of sympathy with this proposal. I hope as a result of his deliberations since the Committee stage, when I was rather less modest than I am now, his sympathy will be abounding and he will be able to accept this Clause.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am tempted to support my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) only because one of his truisms caused laughter on the other side of the House. The laughter came from hon. Members whose hearts are usually in the right place, but on this occasion they were showing their prejudice against the landlord. Deep down in their hearts they know that what is proposed is in the best interests of the tenants. It is a fact that if the rent does not produce an income which allows the owner to spend money on repairs then essential repairs are neglected. Those of us who visit Scotland and enjoy it and find that its people are friendly think that there are too many deplorable houses there. The proportion is much higher than in England.
I do not think that the coincidence or historical accident to which my hon. Friend referred which has kept the rents so stupidly low is the reason for the bad conditions there. We in England who have always looked after Scotland and who would like to see a better standard—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about the rotten, insanitary houses with no lavatories?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The rotten, insanitary houses with no lavatories can only be improved if the rent allows them to be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is hard enough to listen to one speech at once. To attempt to listen to two simultaneously is intolerable.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On this occasion, I want to support my hon. Friend against the laughter.
Those who manage property want to keep it in good condition. They can only keep it in good condition if they have an income which enables them to spend money on it. I accept completely the contention of my hon. Friend that if his Clause were accepted it would be in the interests of the tenant. I do not think that the landlord would be able to retain anything that was worth while out of it. If we view this objectively, and accept the facts of life, and they are that the income has to be there before it can be spent, it would be seen to be in the best interests of improving the housing conditions of Scotland to accept the Clause.
I hope that the Treasury Bench will see fit, if it wants to improve general housing conditions in those parts of Scotland, which are in need of improvement, to accept the Clause. We have to ensure, by legislation, as far as we can, that the money going into the coffers is spent upon these things. If the Under-Secretary of State can think of a better way of increasing the rent, so that it could be spent on repairs, we will listen, but if he cannot, I think that the House will advise him to accept the Clause.

1.45 a.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: There is some misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), about the intentions of the Government in this matter. I thought that we had successfully convinced the House that our new Clause No. 3 was a response to what was said in Committee on this point. What the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, West, is seeking to do is to introduce into the Bill an entirely new system of rent tariffs which is quite foreign to the whole intention behind the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly consistent in that he has always maintained this point, irrespective of the Government in power. The last time that the hon. Gentleman moved such a Clause, as I reminded the Committee, was in 1962, in the discussion on the then Bill. The


then Under-Secretary said that the data on which his argument was founded was uncertain and unknown, and that until such time as the then Government were able to know the full facts, it was wrong of them to accept his proposition. When the hon. Gentleman moved a similar Clause in Committee he resorted, quite fairly, to a survey conducted by the property owners in Scotland, with the full co-operation of the Scottish Development Department.
It was always said that this was an incomplete survey which did not cover all the houses in Scotland, but only a certain number. In relation to controlled houses it involved 56,000, compared with a figure of quarter of a million such houses. So it cannot be said that it was a completely sound survey. My point is that, like the previous Government, until such time as we have further facts, no one can argue the case whether it is true that in all cases of controlled houses in Scotland they will go to at least the level of the gross annual value in rent.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman says that survey was incomplete and did not give a true picture because it involved 56,000 out of 250,000. The Government are taking a census survey based on 1 to 10 and they will act upon that picture. Surely 1 to 5 is more accurate?

Dr. Mabon: That might be fair if one is an amateur statistician, but if one talks to statisticians on this one finds that there are various ways of taking samples and of innocently taking inaccurate samples which give a wrong answer. No doubt Dr. Gallup might have a good argument about this.
One of the first acts of this Government was to agree to conduct, through the Social Survey Unit, a comprehensive survey of housing finance and housing conditions in Scotland. The first of these surveys will be published in the autumn and we hope then to have the first full social record of what the Scottish housing position is.
I am not arguing the conclusions of the survey, which I have not seen. I am saying that there is no comprehensive picture of evidence on which to base the arguments that the hon. Member has put

forward—I merely re-echo what Under-Secretaries of his party have said on this matter—and on which to make his claim that all controlled houses in Scotland should be rented at the gross annual value.
In the context of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made a sound reflection when, in talking about the valuation pattern in Scotland, he invited me to make comparable comments on the Scottish system, as the Court of Session did recently on the English system. He said that it is not certain, in the argument about fair rents, that in all these controlled houses cases the rent officer would agree that a fair rent is gross annual value or more.
I will give some illustrations from the local housing indices of the 1961 Census. There are in Scotland 460,000 houses which do not have exclusive use of all four arrangements—that is, a fixed bath, hot water tap, water closet and cold water tap. Anyone with knowledge of the controlled housing pattern in Scotland knows, however, that the lower gross annual value houses, to which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West referred in six categories, are the very houses which are without those facilities.
I admit that I cannot prove that. The figures have never existed to give us the exact figures in terms of rent tariffs as opposed to physical facilities. It is, however, a fair point for the Government to take to say that it is wrong to presume that all these controlled houses are bound at some time or other to be paying the gross annual value as a fair rent—that is, presuming that the rent officer is bound to accept this right away.
The hon. Member is arguing that while nothing is to be done about this in England, where the housing position, in crude physical terms, is at least six times better—there is no comparable English Clause to that which the hon. Member has moved, in Scotland, where housing is worse, after the Bill has received the Royal Assent we are to have for the controlled houses an automatic rise of 25 per cent., 25 per cent. a year later and the same thing the following year and the year after that until the full gross annual value rent is paid for controlled houses.
I am willing to concede that there may be a category of housing for which that is fair. I go further and say that perhaps even the rent officers might decide that the fair rent was higher than the controlled rent. That, however, is for the rent officers to decide. Otherwise, the whole intention of the Bill will be frustrated if we presume that we know the answers when we neither have the complete evidence nor know how the rent officers will work.
As we have agreed to incorporate new Clause No. 3 in the Bill and we have allowed the idea of bringing in controlled rents in an orderly manner, and since the creeping decontrol provisions will mean that about 17,500 houses will come out of control into regulation, as well as the operation of subsection (6) of new Clause No. 3, we are making a serious attempt to look at the problem.
I for one accepted the position of the property owners when they argued the case that they should have a pilot scheme in Glasgow, in the only area where they could, to demonstrate how they could modernise tenement property and make it fit to live in. With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is on duty in Scotland attending Her Majesty, otherwise he would be anxious to take part in this debate, we persuaded the corporation to embark upon a trial process like this to demonstrate the financial facts.
If the property owners have a case for modernising property, they should be allowed to demonstrate it and we should be allowed to see the kind of rents which they would have to charge to make the system viable. We are not adopting a doctrinaire, hidebound attitude. The House must be fair, and see that the Government's intentions are respectable. We have honoured what we said in Committee by bringing in new Clause No. 3, and we feel that although it may be modest in the eyes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is an attempt to try to make fair rents work not only for regulated and presently decontrolled houses, but also for the controlled housing sector in Scotland.

Sir Douglas Glover: It is with some hesitation that I rise to speak on a new Clause which refers only to Scotland, but as I was considered fit to

defend Scotland during the war, I do not see why I should not criticise her when I think that she is doing wrong. I was in the 52nd Highland Division for 2½ years during the war. I was prepared to fight, and if necessary to die, for Scotland, and therefore I do not see why I should not be allowed to criticise what is being done here.
I support the Clause because most of the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman were in favour of it. He said that the situation in Scotland was six times as bad as that in England. What is the reason for that? It is—and I say this with great trepidation—that Scotland has not been as wise as we have been in England. Down here there has been a steady growing acceptance of the fact that, if we want property to be maintained in a recent condition, rents have to rise with the fall in the value of money, and, therefore, rents have to be near the economic value that is necessary for a landlord to get an income on which he can modernise his house.
The housing situation is worse in Scotland than in England, because what I call market forces have not been allowed to operate to the extent that they have done in England. I do not say that there is not a housing problem in England, but it is accepted that the quality of housing, particularly controlled housing, is worse in Scotland than it is here. Everybody knows that rents in Scotland are very much lower in Scotland than they are in England and, therefore, very much further away from the economic rents, or the gross rateable value. This is really half the problem that is facing Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are to conduct a survey, and that they have only 55,000 houses on which to base a decision. That is the sort of argument that I heard for 13 years when we were in power. The hon. Gentleman has learnt very quickly that when one does not want to do something, the thing to say is, "We have not got enough information." We do not need a survey to tell us that landlords in Scotland do not receive a reasonable rent for their property. In some cases they receive only a quarter of the gross rateable value of the property, and, therefore, under the present economic conditions no money is available for them to bring


their property up to a respectable standard.
I would not mind if the Government said, "We accept the ideas behind the Clause, but if in means that over a period of years rents of houses will be brought up to the gross rateable value, we will bring in a parallel Clause so that this may only happen provided that the landlord carries out certain improvements to his property".

Mr. Manuel: That is not in the Clause.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman has interrupted in a most discourteous way. He has done so while remaining seated. I shall not give way if he rises now. The point is that if the hon. Member, speaking for the Secretary of State for Scotland, said, "We accept the basic concept behind the new Clause but if we brought it into force we should want to have certain corollaries running parallel with it. We would accept gross rateable value as the recognised rent for the properties in Scotland only if the landlord, before being allowed to get the rent that would accrue to him as a result of the Clause, did carry out certain improvements to the property", I would support him. We all want improvements brought about by the provision of baths and lavatories.

Mr. Manuel: rose—

2.0 a.m.

Sir D. Glover: I shall not give way. If the hon. Member is so discourteous as to interject from a seated position I shall not give way.

Mr. Manuel: Just a squalid politician.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member should not refer to himself in derogatory terms at this hour of the night. We know that he is a squalid politician. I do not know why he should seek to draw attention to the fact.
Everybody in Scotland, for very desirable reasons—because they wanted to keep the rents down—

Mr. Manuel: You do not know anything about it. You are talking complete nonsense.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): The hon. Member will please

refrain from making comments while sitting down.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. Can we have some guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? We are getting so-called facts which are very misleading. The House has been regaled with a tissue of falsehoods. Cannot the hon. Member be called to order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not observed that the hon. Member has been guilty of any falsehoods.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—on a point of order or otherwise—for the hon. Member to accuse my hon. Friend of telling a deliberate falsehood?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that there was any suggestion of a deliberate falsehood. I do not think that any point of order arises.

Sir D. Glover: I will bring the House back to the good humour it was in previously. I am sure that the hon. Member is not capable of initiating a deliberate falsehood even if he tried. He is showing his usual exuberance when sitting on those benches. He can never keep quiet for long.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We would make better progress if we confined ourselves to the terms of the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: I was only trying to reduce the temperature of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members wish to interrupt me I can go on for a long time. I do not mind what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) says about this. The level of rents of controlled tenancies in Scotland are very much lower than those in England. I am not trying to make a party point, because this situation has existed for many years, and both Governments have some degree of responsibility for it. But if the Scottish Office was honest about it it would agree that this is why so many houses in Scotland are in a worse condition than those in England.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In the table to which I referred, 55 per cent. of the houses in Scotland which are privately rented have one or two rooms. That is not true in England. When I said that


the position in Scotland was six times worse, I meant that in these physical terms. It is unfair to compare rents of one-apartment and two-apartment houses with the rents of three- four- or five-apartment houses. That is what the hon. Gentleman is doing.

Sir D. Glover: With great respect to the Under-Secretary of State, a great many houses in England are one up and one down. The facilities are little different from those in Scotland. These properties present a problem, but if one is to go any way towards solving it, we will not get any private landlord to bring about the improvements which we all want to see, unless he draws much nearer to an economic rent for that property and therefore has the reserve powers which are needed for him to expend the money on those improvements.

Mr. Thomas Oswald: Is the hon. Member aware that his party, when in power, passed the 1954 and 1957 Rent Acts, which said that the cost of any repair carried out to or in or at or near a property was passed on to the tenant and that, after the total sum of the repair had been paid by the tenant, the increases in the rates still remained on the rent book and still continue today. So landlords in Scotland have been collecting additional money in additional rents for those repairs carried out since 1954 and 1957.

Sir D. Glover: I shall not enter into a long speech on that. In fact, that is not completely accurate. Anybody who has studied the housing problems of the last 10 years knows that that is what I would call a loaded question. It is not strictly true. If one starts from a completely uneconomic rent and, because one spends a small sum of money on modernisation, one is allowed to amortise that amount and increase the rent by 2s. a week, if the rent is still below the uneconomic price which the landlord is getting in return, there is no incentive to do that modernisation.
I am not trying to make a party point. I think that because of the political problem in both parties, because of the great emotion involved in this, none of us has fundamentally faced the fact that property does not remain in good condition unless, in a prosperous society, the people

living in that property are paying what, in the value of money today, is an economic rent.
The Clause says that people in this property should pay an economic rent. Knowing the Government's ideology on this, I would say to them that I am prepared to accept that if they accepted the Clause they would do so on the basis that they would want to bring in some conditions to say that if the rent was to be increased, it would be allowed to be increased provided only that the landlord had carried out the necessary improvements to bring the property up to the standard acceptable to all the people in that house.
That would be a sensible and constructive approach to the problem from the Government of the day. I am surprised at the attitude on the other side of the House, because I am trying to be constructive and to overcome the problem which every person in the country wants to see overcome.
I think that I have made the point to the hon. Gentleman. I understand why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not here, but the hon. Gentleman made a far more effective speech than his right hon. Friend would have done—far more vitriolic and in the House of Commons mood than we usually have at two o'clock in the morning. Any sensible person would accept the new Clause, if necessary with modifications. I would not object if the Government accepted it but added that there must be conditions attached concerning the increases. After all, we are speaking about the need to bring about improvements to property, much of which will be standing long after many of us would like to see it demolished and replaced with new building.
We should approach this problem as practical people and not as a group of individuals with certain ideologies. Nobody who owns property and who is not getting an income from it will spend his resources, if he has any, or income from other sources on improving that property unless he knows that he will get a reasonable return on the money invested on making those improvements. I hope that the Government will approach the new Clause in a constructive


way and will either accept it or accept the principle underlying it.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(FORM OF NOTICE TO QUIT.)

(1) Any notice to quit served on the residential occupier of any premises shall be in the prescribed form.

(2) The form of notice referred to herein shall be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister by statutory instrument and shall include such an explanation of the relevant provisions of this Act as appear to the Minister requisite for informing the residential occupiers of their rights and obligations under those provisions.

(3) Any statutory instrument under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Lubbock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 50, in Clause 25, page 15, line 19, after "residence", insert
or serves a notice to quit which he knows to be illegal or serves a notice to quit other than in the prescribed form well knowing that a prescribed form is required".

Mr. Lubbock: That will be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The House will be relieved to know that I can move this Clause in a fraction of the time it took to deal with the previous one, because hon. Members who took part in the Committee proceedings will recall that we discussed the principle underlying it when I moved an Amendment to Clause 25. Considering the matter in retrospect, it was a pity that I withdrew that Amendment after listening to the honeyed words of the Attorney-General. Having had a further opportunity to consider the matter, I think I can claim now to have slightly improved the method of dealing with the problem.
I will refer to Amendment No. 50 first. In it, I propose to add the words:
… or serves a notice to quit which he knows to be illegal or serves a notice to quit other than in the prescribed form well knowing that a prescribed form is required".

That deals with the problem of intimidation by the service of an illegal notice or a notice which is not in the prescribed form. I will return to that issue when I have discussed the new Clause. It has been widely contended that Clause 25 as drafted already deals with this point. Subsection (1, b) of that Clause refers to
… acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier …
When we discussed this in Committee the Attorney-General said:
My view is that where there was evidence before the court of a landlord serving on the tenant a series of invalid notices to quit in circumstances that clearly indicated that his purpose was to upset the tenant and drive him out of the premises by reason of that interference with his peace, then if proven before the court, those acts would establish the offence of harassment of the occupier within the meaning of Clause 25."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 1st June, 1965; c. 748.]
That sounds very nice—that is, until it is analysed. Then one finds that the Attorney-General speaks of "a series of invalid notices".
I take it that he chose his words carefully and that he would not have said what he did unless he meant a series and not a single invalid notice. Presumably, therefore, a single invalid notice, whatever the intention behind it, would not constitute an offence under Clause 25. Further, one must establish the purpose which the landlord had in submitting the notice.
2.15 a.m.
We say in Amendment No. 50 that if he knows the notice to be illegal he shall have committed an offence under Clause 25. This is slightly more likely catch the landlord who is "fly" and does not repeat his offence if he thinks that he is under observation, but does repeat it if he thinks that he is not, or if he thinks that the tenant is not likely to report him.
It would be a good thing to put the matter beyond doubt. I am sure that there is a good deal of anxiety in the minds of hon. Members on this score. We all have people coming to our advice bureaux, or writing to us about lawyers' letters they receive telling them to get out of their properties, letters which may well be invalid and, in fact, in most cases are. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel)


referred to this type of practice, which is not defined to England and Wales, but, we understand, occurs also in Scotland.
The new Clause follows the precedent of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954. I am pleased to note that the Attorney-General and, I suppose, the Government, will accept the principle that we should have a prescribed notice to quit. This would be an advance on our present practice. The Attorney-General, in Committee, went on to say:
I am sure that this is one of the problems that will be considered when, as is hoped, and, it I may commit them to this extent, expected—that the Law Commissioners will in due course review the whole law of landlord and tenant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 1st June, 1965; c. 748.]
I am afraid that the Law Commissioners may become an avenue by which Governments escape their immediate responsibilities.
Here we have an opportunity of doing something about the matter. We may not get another opportunity of discussing it till either the Minister brings forward his consolidating rent Bill he has promised, or till, after a lengthy delay, the Law Commissioners consider it, among the many others which are for their immediate attention. I do not think that I have to explain in any detail what the purpose of a statutory notice to quit is. It is obvious.
Neither is there need for me to explain the purposes of the Bill. The Minister said on Second Reading that
all of us who have been working on this Measure recognise that legislation by reference is peculiarly opaque, and that this is the more regrettable in a Measure of social reform the import of which it is vital that millions of ordinary people should understand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1965; Vol. 710, c. 33.]
I think that the Minister will agree with me when I say that it is quite essential that anyone who is affected by a notice to quit under the Bill should have the clearest understanding of what his rights and obligations are. We can ensure that easily by giving the Minister power to lay down that a full explanation accompanies any notice to quit which, under the Bill, is sent out. This would encourage the good relationships between landlord and tenants which it is one of the principal stated objects of the Bill to promote. For all these reasons, I hope that the Minister will accept both the new Clause and Amendment No. 50.

Sir D. Glover: I see appended to the new Clause the names of two hon. Members on the Government side of the House. Is this the first sign of a Liberal-Labour pact?

Mr. Lubbock: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman had put his name to the new Clause, and to the further Amendment, we should have been delighted to see it there.

Mr. Corfield: I was rather assuming, from the names put to the new Clause, that it was probably an agreed Amendment, though there is a certain amount of significance in the fact that the hon. Members on the other side whose names are put to the Clause, the hon. Member for Salford, E. (Mr. Frank Allaun) and the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) are not in their places. Whether it is significant or not I do not know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"].
Although I would not entirely follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) in the arguments he used in support of the Clause, I would add my support to it and hope that the Government will accept it, or at least bring one of their own in similar form.
I do so for somewhat different reasons. I am worried that Clause 25 will not be adequate to catch the landlord who uses a series of invalid notices as a form of persecution. It has seemed to me over the years, particularly when I was in the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, that as life becomes more and more complex, the old legal adage "ignorance of the law is no excuse" becomes hollower and hollower when you try and explain it to some one who cannot possibly be expected to understand it.
There is a great deal to be said for the part of the provision that means that the relevant provision of the Act shall appear on the notice. This is particularly important when we consider the Clause that we were discussing earlier this evening. It produces a number of occasions on which the normal running of the Act will not apply to a particular tenancy. On the other hand, I have to admit that this fact also makes it perhaps difficult to prescribe a form that would be applicable in all circumstances. There


may be difficulties from that point of view, but I would strongly support the main suggestion that a tenant should know exactly what are his obligations, as well as his rights.
We are inclined to talk a great deal about rights without remembering that preserving a man's rights, except where the legislature interferes, ought to be a man's duty. This is certainly so in many cases that will arise under the earlier Clause which we were discussing.
I hope that the Minister will be in a receptive mood as the evening rolls on. Even if, as I think the Attorney-General has indicated, there may be some difficulties in prescribing a universal form. I hope that he will accept the spirit of the Clause.

The Attorney-General: We on this side of the House are in full sympathy with the approach of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and fully sympathise with what he is trying to do in this Clause. We have noted with admiration the energy and persistence that he has applied to the pursuit of this principle.
Perhaps I should say at the outset that no amount of legislation can prevent a landlord of a certain type from serving an ineffective notice in the hope that the tenant will act on it. No Act of Parliament can stop a scoundrelly landlord from trying it on. We shall punish him if he carries it to the point of harassment. We are making that now a criminal offence. Deliberate cases of harassment will, of course, be punished under Clause 25 of the Bill.
I think that the House would probably take the view that the mere failure to use a prescribed form on perhaps one occasion only—as the hon. Member for Orpington suggests should be the basis of a criminal prosecution—may be taking it a little too far. I think that if a course of serving a series of notices upon a tenant is pursued to the point of harassment, even though individually the notices might be in order, that would be a proper foundation for a prosecution. Apart from that aspect of the matter, when one comes to deal with the kind of notice to quit that is practicable and effective, very great difficulties are encountered at once.
May I say to the hon. Member for Orpington that in my view his own Clause is much too wide. It deals with a reference to the residential occupier, and I apprehend that he intends that to be given the same meaning as the residential occupier described in Clause 25. If that is right, the Clause would cover, first, tenancies that are already subject to a requirement of a prescribed notice; for instance, tenancies within Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954. Secondly, on the face of it, the requirement would cover tenancies and similar relationships which can be terminated without any notice to quit at all; for example, statutory tenancies or tenancies for a fixed term.
But there is another and a rather graver difficulty in finding a prescribed form of notice that summarises adequately the many and complex features of the statutory and case law on the Rent Acts. The most that a notice to quit would do would be to refer to the protection of the Acts and leave it to the tenant, probably with a lawyer to help him, to find what that really amounted to.
Even in the comparatively limited field of Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, the form that is prescribed for a notice to terminate a tenancy occupies two and a half closely printed pages in the bible of the lawyer dealing with the law of landlord and tenant, written by my learned friend Mr. Megarry. That is a comparatively simple problem, but the House would be misleading itself if it thought that this problem was an easy one. It is not. It is extremely difficult, and the fact is that the problem can only be tackled satisfactorily in the context of a general revision of the law of landlord and tenant.
I make no apology at all for expressing my delight that at last we have in existence a permanent Law Commission which is charged with keeping the law under review and reforming it. I have little doubt that one of the first tasks that the Commission will lend itself to will be a review and redrafting of the law of landlord and tenant.
However, as the hon. Member has said, that is bound to take some time. I fully sympathise with his view that, if it is possible to find a practicable form of


notice to quit which will provide some protection to the tenant against undue alarm without, at the same time, making unjustifiable inroads into the right of a landlord to obtain possession in proper circumstances, clearly that effort should be made.
2.30 a.m.
Frankly, we have found the task of finding a form of notice that can be helpful and effective—and not be a mere bluff, which I am sure the hon. Member would not want—a very difficult one. The matter is still receiving the most active consideration of my right hon. Friend and myself and those who are assisting us, and we hope that we may be able to produce a Clause dealing with a form of notice to quit for production in another place when this Bill goes there.
I cannot give positive assurances that we shall succeed, but we shall certainly try, and. I want to assure the House of our maximum good will in regard to this problem. We have inherited in this field a situation that has been allowed to drift, and in which the law has been allowed to reach a state of near chaos. Nothing has been done to deal with this matter in any radical way for decades. We will tackle the job, but, in the meantime, we shall do our best to introduce some first-aid formula to protect the tenant during the interim period of waiting, not for Godot but for a really effective review of the law of landlord and tenant.

Dame Joan Vickers: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the form issued by local authorities? They have a specific form. Could he not have a form on the same lines? I think that it would be very advantageous. The forms set out the position quite simply.

The Attorney-General: I have seen those forms, and within their limits they are very useful for dealing with the limited problem of such notices, but in the wide range of tenancies and relationships between landlord and tenant with which we are here dealing the problem is very complex. However, I hope that the House will now be satisfied by what I have said, that we are making—I was about to use the phrase "a desperate effort"—we will certainly make a serious effort to see whether something

can be produced for another place to give protection to the tenant who might be subjected to undue alarm by unjustifiable notice.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I find the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument extremely unconvincing, and I cannot think that his heart is in it. It is surely quite simple to devise a reasonable form of notice to alert the tenant to his basic rights under the Bill. That is all that is needed. There are any number of precedents. The learned Attorney-General has referred to the notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, but there are other precedents. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act the landlord has to give the tenant certain information in the notice.
In this kind of case it is very necessary to alert the tenant to his basic rights. We do not expect the notice required of the landlord to give all the detailed rights of the tenant, or the detailed obligations that fall on him under the Bill. I am sure that in a very short time a form of notice could be devised that would enable the tenant to know his basic rights.
I was also amazed to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that this state of affairs could be remedied in another place. I did not know that the Government were so keen on another place and its revisionary powers that they had to resort to it to put these things right. Why, with all their resources, is it impossible for the Government to devise a form that could be readily available to the tenant; and to accept this Amendment? It shows a reactionary, conservative attitude on the part of the learned Attorney-General which I must say I had not hitherto, in a long association with him, connected with him at all.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The Bill is becoming incredibly bewildering. It certainly bewilders the Government and the Opposition, and we now have a situation in which, having had more than 60 Amendments put down for this Report stage by the Government, we see another place becoming equally clogged up as it starts trying to sort out other problems arising as we go along. If the Bill ever becomes law, and is put into practice, I fear that the situation will arise in which tenants who are to be protected by it will


be so bewildered by its complications that they will find it almost impossible to discover where their measure of protection really is.
I would suggest to the learned Attorney-General that even if he cannot find a suitable form for this notice, at least he should make sure that the Government are urgently considering a document which will be available to every landlord and tenant, setting out in simple form what the Bill is all about.
As things stand, I am getting in my mailbag letters from landlords and tenants alike who are absolutely confused by the provisions of the Bill. This Clause points, I think, to a particularly important aspect—that of the confusion that will be in the mind of the tenant receiving bullying communications through the post—and I hope that even if we cannot get a concrete form of notice at least we can have a thorough explanatory note.

Mr. Carlisle: It is really extraordinary that for the second time during today's sitting we have heard the Government say that they propose to put down Amendments in another place to review yet again matters raised first in Committee on this Bill.

The Attorney-General: I am beginning to wonder what conception hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite really have of the functions of a debate on Report. I had understood that this was part of the Parliamentary process of the offering of criticism by the Opposition and the consideration of it by the Government. Really, the suggestion that to accept after consideration arguments put forward in the House is an indication of (a) incompetence, and (b) behaving in an irresponsible fashion, is the biggest lot of gibberish I have heard in the House for years.

Mr. Carlisle: With a very great deal of respect to the learned Attorney-General, the point I am making, and I still believe that it is a relevant point, is that these matters have not been raised for the first time on this stage of the Bill. This matter, and the previous matters on New Clause No. 11, were raised in Committee as well, and the point I wish to make is that if, as the Attorney-General is

now conveying to the House, it is practicable to make such an Amendment, or to accept such a new Clause as the hon Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has moved, surely the Government would have been in a position, after considering this in Committee, to have brought it forward for debate on the Report stage in this House.
With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Orpington, although I have a great deal of sympathy with what is behind his intention, I really do not believe that it is feasible for the Government at this stage or in another place to carry out such an amendment as is proposed, and that is why, I suspect, they said that they will reconsider it.
Although I think that if one could arrange for a notice to quit to be in a prescribed form it would be an excellent idea, when one considers the precedents under the 1954 Act and the precedents under the Agricultural Tenancies Act, one has to remember that there is one great distinction between this Bill and those Acts. In almost all cases where one has notice to quit in a prescribed form, one is tending to deal with landlords likely to be professional landlords, likely to have professional advisers who are likely to know the form in which notices are to be served.
What perturbs me about this Clause—and I ask the Attorney-General to consider this before going ahead and bringing in a new Clause in another place—is that many of the people with whom we are concerned with reference to residential accommodation are people who, perhaps, have let one room in a furnished dwelling. They would be covered as also would be anyone who owned one house and let another house. Is it practicable to expect those landlords to serve a notice to quit in a prescribed form? Although I have some sympathy with the idea, I doubt whether it is practicable to bring this in and whether it would not cause much injustice to landlords.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: Is the hon. and learned Member suggesting that a landlord in that position will be capable of serving a valid effective notice, but incapable of getting hold of the prescribed form?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) would


agree that they have enough difficulty at the moment in serving a valid notice to quit.

Mr. Bowen: Would that make it more simple?

Mr. Carlisle: Knowing the strict rules already applying to valid notices to quit, we might put too great a strain on a landlord—not a big company, but one of these landlords—if he had to serve a notice in the prescribed form.
The point I wish to raise does not come under the part of the new Clause which is open to argument. What perturbs me is Amendment No. 50, which is in the names of two hon. Members of the Liberal Party. I hope that the intention of the Government to consider a prescribed notice does not go so far as to consider that Amendment with favour. Presumably the word "illegal" means "invalid".

Mr. Bowen: Known to be invalid.

Mr. Carlisle: If the landlord knows it to be invalid, I cannot see that it is such an act as should be liable to the serving of a six months' term of imprisonment.

Mr. Lubbock: That has been altered.

Mr. Carlisle: Not by this Clause. Accepting that the landlord knows that the prescribed form is required, what if, in all good faith, knowing that, the landlord serves another notice? Is he in that way committing an offence which would make him liable to six months' imprisonment? I should have thought that the Attorney-General was absolutely right in saying that the persistent service of notices in this matter would in itself amount to harassment under Clause 25 as it stands.
The final point I make is one which I made in Committee. I still do not fully appreciate why it is a greater harassment or embarrassment to the tenant to serve an invalid notice to quit on him than a valid one and that it is calculated to cause him discomfort. Surely the service of a valid notice may be just as great an embarrassment and disturb his peace and comfort as would the service of an invalid notice. Although if it were practicable one would like to see some form of prescribed notice, I very much fear that it

is not practicable. I would be very much concerned with some of the implications of the Amendment in relation to Clause 25.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Bowen: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I have been provoked to do so by the remarks of the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). In this observations on Amendment 50 he forgot entirely the fact that knowledge that a notice to quit is illegal or invalid is required when serving that notice. I would have thought that when a person quite deliberately serves a notice which he knows to be invalid according to the conditions clearly laid down in Clause 25 it is harassment and something with which we would wish to deal.
When the hon. Member referred to the serving of notice on a prescribed form he omitted entirely to point out that none of this operates unless the first part of Clause 25 comes into operation. The Clause lays down that
If any person with intent to cause the residential occupier of any premises—
(a) to give up the occupation of the premises or any part thereof; …
does acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household …
or with that object in mind, that type of conduct is harassment and should be dealt with under the Bill.
When one is dealing with the prescribed notice to quit in the 1954 Act which dealt with agricultural tenancies, one is normally dealing with a landlord who has legal advisers whereas many landlords covered by the Bill do not have legal advisers. They are precisely the people who should receive additional and very much-needed protection by the provision of a prescribed form which would set out quite specifically their rights and obligations under the Bill. The arguments which the hon. Member for Runcorn used against the prescribed form were most positive arguments in its favour.
The Attorney General has rather overstated the difficulties. Presumably at some stage a leaflet will be issued, explaining the operation of the Bill when it becomes law. If it is possible to do that I see no reason why the same kind of information as contained in the leaflet should not be set out in the prescribed


form. I would like there to be information about tenants' rights to legal aid and his position when seeking guidance from local citizens' advice bureaux and similar organisations.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: At first sight, the proposal in this Clause seems attractive to me as a Scottish lawyer who has had considerable experience of notices to quit on prescribed forms. In Scotland for many years we have had rather more civilised ways of getting rid of our tenantse than seems to have been the case in England and Wales. As the House knows it has never been the practice, although theoretically possible, to proceed to an eviction without recourse to the courts. The Sheriffs Courts Acts from 1907 to 1913 laid down prescribed forms of notices to quit.
These notices to quit must be in statutory form if they are to have validity. We have heard that word "validity" several times in the course of this short debate. It seems that the mover of the new Clause, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Eric Lubbock), has become a little confused about what is a notice to quit and what is not. He has in mind something which is very different from a notice to quit, which is intended to have legal validity in bringing to an end a tenancy. He spoke about lawyers' letters. If we are going to widen the Clause so as to include a whole series of notices and lawyers' letters then we are getting on to very dangerous ground indeed.
We discussed at length earlier in the evening the first new Clause which prescribed certain circumstances in which a landlord could recover possession of his house. That Clause provides that to recover possession of his house a landlord must give notice to the tenant of his intention to resume possession. In certain circumstances the normal way of giving notice would be for the landlord, or his solicitors, to write a letter to the tenant saying, "I intend to resume possession of my house at such and such a date, in accordance with my entitlements under this Act".
It may be that the tenant, in accordance with the contract between the two parties, would act upon that. That is a much nicer way of doing it than sending a

missive to him on a prescribed form, with all sorts of references to imprisonment and all the rest of it. Very great care would require to be taken in formulating any sort of notice to quit which is to be made under the circumstances envisaged under the Bill.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Is the hon. Member seriously suggesting that people put out into the street would feel happier if they received a nice letter from a nice landlord instead of properly framed legal form showing them their rights?

Mr. Hendry: The hon. Member should use his brains and think out what happens on these occasions. Under new Clause No. 1 we have the case where there is a solemn bargain between a landlord and tenant that the tenant will occupy the house, until the purification of a certain event, whether the lapse of a certain period, or some event taking place. The landlord knows what the circumstances are and the tenant knows, also. In such circumstances, the landlord and tenant will be on friendly terms, and if they are not they ought to be. I believe that 90 per cent. of landlords and tenants are on perfectly friendly terms and that it is far nicer for the landlord or his solicitors, to write to the tenant and say that that event has taken place and that if is now time for him to leave the house.
The case has already been mentioned of a lady having sublet part of her house to a tenant. She does not go to a solicitor and serve notice. She says, "My laddie is coming home and I need your room." This is a verbal notice to quit. Has she got to get a form and send it to the sub-tenant, because that is what it boils down to? It seems ludicrous that a person could, under the proposed Clause render himself liable for six months' imprisonment. We must have a sense of proportion about this. Clause 25 provides that for the first offence a person is liable to a fine not exceeding £100, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or for both. On a second or subsequent conviction, if someone writes a second nice letter, he will be liable to a fearsome penalty, to
a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both".


I have had great experience of this professionally, not only acting for landlords, but acting for tenants. In the majority of cases, there are the best possible relations between the two parties. To have to sit down and send out a fearsome notice with reference to a fine of £500 and six months' imprisonment, or both, is ludicrous when it can be done simply by a lawyer's letter.
I hope that the Attorney-General will consider these difficulties. If he considers providing a statutory form of notice to quit, he should have in mind a notice to quit which would be necessary, as is done in Scotland, for the purpose of validating the termination of a tenancy and not for setting up impossible barriers between landlords and tenants who may be on very friendly terms.
Although the hon. Member for Orpington has the germ of a good idea, he simply has not thought it out properly. In making such a proposal, it is up to the Member who moves it to say exactly what he has in mind. Obviously, the thing is so wide as to be completely and utterly unworkable.
The Attorney-General has stated that the Clause in its present form is unacceptable to him. I hope that he will give further thought to it and greatly narrow down the position. Certainly, if he finds it necessary to prescribe a form of notice to quit, I hope that it will not be hedged about with all the fearsome penalties which are contained in Clause 25, which would be the natural consequence of the Clause as drafted.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This has been a rather curious debate on the new Clause. When I looked at the Notice Paper, some hours ago, I thought that this would be a joint Liberal-Labour effort, the first fruits, perhaps, of the initiative of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) to establish friendly relations with those who disagree with him on fundamental issues.

Sir D. Glover: My right hon. Friend will, of course, realise that it would cause a split with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) if it went further.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I were to be led, even by my hon. Friend, into the

entertaining subject of Liberal splits, I should probably be called to order.
That expectation was defeated because the names of hon. Members opposite appear to the new Clause. On the other hand, one of the hon. Members concerned has not appeared at all during the debate and the other, the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger), arrived halfway through but has remained uncharacteristically silent.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend was reassured by what I said.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It would be difficult for her to be satisfied with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said except by telepathy, because I do not think that the hon. Lady was present at the time. I also have far too high a regard for her intelligence to believe that she would have been satisfied by what the Attorney-General said had she been here. The right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore loses both ways.
It is significant that hon. Members opposite put their names to the new Clause and have not had the courage to speak to it. They are rather like a number of hon. Members opposite below the Gangway who spoke violently against new Clause No. 3, but trooped into the Government Lobby when the time came to vote.
3.0 a.m.
I cannot help feeling sorry for the Attorney-General. He is always put up to speak when the House as a whole wants something and is to be told that it cannot have it. It has become even more noticeable now that there is not on the Government Front Bench any Minister from the Department responsible for the Bill. The Minister sees fit to insist on driving his legislation through in the middle of the night. I think that it would be proper if he or one of the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries would condescend to join the proceedings if, in view of the confused mess in which the Government's programme now is, legislation has to be driven through in the middle of the night.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Bill is sponsored by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and by the Secretary of State for Scotland. We resent the


implication that we are an adjunct to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No one would regard Scotsmen as an adjunct to anybody. I have sufficient Scottish blood in me never to wish to make that charge, but the fact remains, and the hon. Gentleman knows it as well as anyone in the House, that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has the main responsibility for the Bill, and that because the Minister has got the Bill into a mess he is insisting on proceeding with it hour after hour through the night. It is extremely improper and discourteous to the House that neither he nor either of the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries is here to take part in the discussions.
Although the Attorney-General was not perhaps at his best, I think that he showed that there were considerable practical difficulties in the new Clause. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, has now entered the Chamber. It is wonderful what oratory can do.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Telepathy.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Attorney-General made a good point when he said that some tenancies were not brought to an end by a notice to quit. It is probably an insuperable objection to the new Clause as it stands, but I think that it is plain that it is the general wish of the House that something should be done in this direction, and that some action should be taken to deal with the matter. Indeed, the Attorney-General himself accepted this when he said that an effort would be made to bring forward a new Clause in another place.
This was the third occasion during this sitting on which the Government indicated their desire to make use of another place in its legislative capacity. It is perhaps fortunate for the Government that those of their supporters who wish to take away the legislative power of another place have not so far been successful, or the Government could not do what it turns out to be highly convenient to seek to do. On two previous occasions a firm undertaking was given

to introduce a new Clause, and on this occasion the Attorney-General has said that the Government will try to do something.
I hope that they will do so, and that they will take advantage of the mass of legislative talent that is available in another place to assist them in that process. It would probably be difficult to press this new Clause on the Attorney-General, because he showed that there were real and substantial objections to it. I am sorry if that breaks up the otherwise united front between the parties in a debate which was made the more remarkable by the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen).

Sir D. Glover: I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be difficult for the House to accept the new Clause. The Attorney-General said that the Government were making desperate efforts. What the House needs is not desperate efforts, but intelligent ones, and we have had very little sign of intelligence tonight from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In fact, this debate has been rather fascinating to anybody in the House who is not a lawyer. On the previous Clause I was convinced that the Law Society was leading by many lengths from the National League of Labour Lawyers, represented by the Attorney-General, but when we came to this Clause we had not only the League of Labour Lawyers and the Law Society; we had learned barristers none of whom agreed with each other, and all of whom explained the intricacies of the Clause, some saying that it was as clear as the ordinary run of Clauses, others saying that it was unintelligible, and some saying that it would not work while others said that it was essential. Listening to these debates between lawyers one is not surprised that most of them die very wealthy men—because they spend most of their time arguing between each other in a most erudite manner, taking money by disagreeing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. The debate is getting a little discursive. I hope that the hon. Member will come to the terms of the new Clause.

Sir D. Glover: I thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for calling me to order. I was carried away by the eloquence of


those Members who belong to the legal profession. This has been very much a lawyers debate.

Mr. Lubbock: I should like the hon. Member to know that I am an engineer.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member need not inform the House of that. The pedestrian way in which he moved the Clause made that clear.

Mr. Lubbock: I will report that to my engineering colleagues.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that we can get down to the debate before us.

Sir D. Glover: I will certainly get down to the meat of the Clause. Engineers are not supposed to be backing this Clause. [Interruption.] I never ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am under attack from the Liberal benches, from a comatose position.
The learned Attorney-General made it clear—it is about the only thing that he did make clear—that the Government were making desperate efforts to achieve what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) wanted to achieve. But we do not need desperate efforts; we want intelligent efforts. There is a good body of opinion in the House—despite the legal arguments—that there is some sound sense behind the Clause.

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. Is not there a rule against tedious repetition, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) use precisely the same words twice. He said that we did not need desperate efforts; we wanted intelligent efforts. He said that more than once.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) must not imagine that the Chair cannot hear. I hope that he will leave order to the Chair.

Sir D. Glover: However hard I tried I could never emulate the hon. Member for Orpington in the matter of tedious repetition.
We come to the question of an intelligent approach to this problem. There is a real desire among many hon. Members for a form of notice to quit. We have had the matter debated by the lawyers,

who have pointed out the difficulties. We come back to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said when he intervened some time ago—when he said he thought that there was a good deal of—

Mr. Lubbock: —tedious repetition.

Sir D. Glover: I do not know why the hon. Member interrupts me. I am supporting his Clause.
We said that there was a good deal of strength in the arguments put forward for the Clause and he said that he was desperately searching for a solution. Now that the Government have realised the value of a formal notice, it would be a good thing if, before the Bill becomes an Act, they used their intelligence to try to produce a form of words which would fill the need for a statutory notice to quit. It would not be open to the objections which the Attorney-General reckons these words have, but would build the argument which he put forward and would build the arguments of the other lawyers who have intervened in the debate. An enormous number of tenants would feel a far greater sense of security and certainty if there were a recognisable form for the notice than if they had a verbal notification or a letter which they did not understand written by someone who was not versed in legal jargon.
There would be a far greater certainty and a far greater degree of uniformity across the country if there were a statutory form for these orders. Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider again whether something on these lines cannot be introduced into the Bill. I am sure that it would be a great protection and, far more important, a great assurance to many ordinary people who would be affected by the Act.

Mr. David Steel: After three o'clock in the morning, I hope that I shall not be departing too far from precedent if, when I say that I shall be brief, I mean it.
Two arguments have been produced against the Clause, neither of which was valid. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) suggested that these words could not be accepted because some tenancies did not require a notice to quit, but, of course, this Clause would not


apply to such tenancies. There is no such reference in the Clause. All that the Clause seeks to do is define what form a notice to quit should take—clearly, in those cases where a notice to quit is required.
The other argument produced against the Clause was put forward by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), who seemed to have a rather rosy view of the landlord-tenant relationship. He seemed to think that it was based on people sending nice letters to one another and having cosy chats on the doorstep. That may be true in some cases, and in those cases there is nothing to prevent people sending nice letters along with the formal notice to quit or handing them over during the chat on the doorstep.
What we are trying to do, and what should be the concern of the House, is to see that the whole landlord-tenant relationship should, wherever possible, be simplified and that people should be aware of their rights. I do not accept that any argument against the Clause has been valid. I hope that we shall not be thought mischievous if we cut across this Tory-Labour pact between the Front Benches and urge the House to accept the new Clause.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1.—(REGULATED TENANCIES.)

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, at the beginning to insert:
In every registration area (as defined in Part II of this Act) in respect of which a rent officer has been appointed to act in accordance with a scheme under the said Part II and a rent assessment committee has been constituted in pursuance of section 20 of this Act and in respect of which the Minister has thereafter (by statutory instrument laid before each House of Parliament) designated the date on which this section shall take effect".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): With this Amendment I suggest that we also discuss Amendment No. 11, in Clause 3, page 3, line 11, leave out from first "Act" to third "the" in line 12.

Mr. Graham Page: That will be satisfactory.
This Amendment is designed to insert certain words right at the beginning of the Bill. We are pleased to see the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the Government Front Bench. They have no doubt been informed that we made some complaint about their absence and the fact that no one from the Ministry was here to look after the Measure. We have great respect for the Attorney-General, but we would have liked to have had the representatives of the Ministry here in charge of the Bill.
The Bill imposes a system of so-called regulated tenancies on about 800,000 houses before setting up the machinery for regulation. It professes to set in motion a new form of regulated control, but it does not, at the outset, set up any machinery for carrying into operation the vital part of regulation. This is putting the cart before the horse.
The vital part of the regulation system or procedure is the determination of a fair rent, and that cannot take effect when the Bill comes into operation. We do not know how soon that machinery will be set up. We have been given certain assurances by the Minister—that he hopes to set up the machinery in some areas quite quickly, but in respect of other areas he has given no assurances. The effect is that for a period after the Bill has become law hundreds of thousands of dwelling-houses now uncontrolled will become strictly controlled.
I use those words deliberately. They will not become regulated tenancies because the whole business or regulation will not be capable of coming into operation. They will for a period of time between the Act becoming operative and the rent officers being installed be strictly controlled properties. Let us make no mistake about that. There are elaborate Clauses, Clauses 4 to 8, for adjusting rents, but those Clauses really boil down to adjustments similar to those which already exist under the Rent Act, 1957, for controlled rents and so the immediate effect of the Bill will be that all dwelling-houses up to a rateable value of £400 in London and £200 in the provinces will be recontrolled. It is really a fraud on the public to call them by any other name, to call them by this fancy name of regulated tenancies, when they have not become regulated tenancies.


Merely renaming them does not translate them into something other than strictly controlled tenancies.
This Amendment would delay the operation of the Bill when it becomes an Act till the machinery for regulation is set up and till it is possible to have a fair rent registered for any property which comes within the Bill. These words of the Amendment would open Clause 1, and would control the remainder of the Clause, so that in every registered area in respect of which a rent officer has been appointed to act in accordance with a scheme under Part II of the Bill, and a rent assessment committee has been set up, and in respect of which the Minister has by statutory instrument designated a date upon which the Clause shall take effect, the Bill will apply, but not till then. So there would be a condition precedent to the Bill's biting, that, first, the rent officer should be appointed in the area in which the house is situate; second, that there should be an assessment committee operating in that area; and, third, that the Minister, having satisfied himself that this machinery is operating, would bring the Bill into operation in that area.
The Minister has told us that he proposes to set up this machinery and the system of registration and the rent officers and the rent assessment committees, and so on, in London and the major cities first. That means that he will be moving the dwelling-houses brought within the Bill from a strict control in the first months to regulated control first in London and the major cities. The result will be that in the country towns where strict control is least needed it will last the longest, and this really is ridiculous, because it is likely to last, so far as I can see, for an indefinite period, with properties controlled and rents frozen for this period till the rent officer is installed. The proper order of doing things is surely to provide machinery for operating legislation before trying to bring the legislation into operation.
It is quite wrong, and ridiculous, to impose strict control on property, to call it regulated property, but not to set up the regulation, not to set up the registration procedure, and the methods of obtaining a fair rent. In these circumstances, the Minister is like Hamlet without the prince—if that is the right phrase.

He is trying to drive a motor car without an engine in it. He is sitting in a bath without any water in it; and without any soap, either. It is just a framework under which he is strictly controlling certain properties without applying the procedure for obtaining a fair rent.
Under this Amendment we would see that as soon as a dwelling-house became subject to the Bill, that machinery would be there for the landlord and tenant to apply to have a fair rent fixed. The Minister should be satisfied, before he imposes control on all properties up to £400 rateable value in London and £200 in the provinces, that there is machinery for fixing a fair rent.

Mr. MacColl: The whole idea behind the Bill has, from the beginning, been that there should be protection for tenants until such time as regulated rents can be made available for them. The Protection from Eviction Act was passed on the assumption that it was necessary to act before the whole machinery could be brought into operation and the ultimate solution found on rent fixing. The Protection from Eviction Act, by general agreement, has been extremely successful in preventing people, in the interim period, taking advantage and raising rents or indulging in wholesale evictions.
It is true that the Act runs for another six months and that, therefore, there is not a complete lack of protection for tenants. Nevertheless, it is not desirable to have nothing done about rents. My right hon. Friend hopes very much, and expects, that over the great part of the country he will have his machinery in operation before the Protection from Eviction Act expires. But it is desirable, in any case, to make quite sure that there is stability in the landlord and tenant relationship until the whole operation is completed.
It would be against the whole idea of the Bill to have a period, or a risk of a period, in which there was no machinery for controlling rents or providing security of tenure. What is proposed in the Bill is that there should be a freeze—which we hope will be short—and as the machinery of rent fixing comes into operation there will be a thaw and fair rents will be achieved. It would be extremely dangerous and unfair to tenants, and extremely disturbing to the landlord


and tenant relationship, to have a period of anarchy before the final arrangements are made. Therefore, I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: We have just listened to an extraordinary speech from the Parliamentary Secretary. He says that he is not ready to put this legislation into effect. That is amazing. It is now about eight months since the Government took office, after 13 wasted years in which they apparently did not prepare any legislation at all to put their ideas into practice.
Then, sometime after the General Election, they came along with an interim Bill—the Protection from Eviction Bill—which, they said, was a measure to enable them to prepare subsequent legislation that would produce all the benefits they expected of it.
I would like to know what effect the Protection from Eviction Bill has had. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that it has been a great success and that there have been endless cases where people's rents have not been put up and people have not been evicted who, without that measure, would have been. I would like some figures about it, because we have heard it said time and time again in Committee, but have never been given any figures, and I cannot see what effect the Act had in fixing rents. I would like to know what the effect of it was, and what the effect of the Bill is to be, if and when it becomes an Act.
Will the Bill have any real effect, other than perpetuating injustices, because it seems to me that that is what it is preparing to do? Where we have a controlled rent at the moment, it appears to be fixed for some indefinite time in the future, and the rents of houses which are under regulation are going to remain under regulation for many years.
We would like to know when to expect these rent officers to be appointed and when some logic will be applied to the whole question of the control of rents; otherwise, we will have the perpetuation of injustices. It really is too bad of the Government to dilly-dally like this, putting this provision too far into the future,

without any sense or logic in its structure.

Mr. Costain: I am disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit to accept this reasonable and practicable Amendment. There seems to me to be no purpose in introducing a Bill of this complexity unless there is a machine to operate the work which the Bill intends. The Minister has made some reference to the effectiveness of the Prevention from Eviction Act. Would he give some figures, for example, how many prosecutions have been brought under the Act, and what information has he from local authorities indicating that the Act is biting in the way he has said?
What is the use of having a Measure of this sort, which is so complicated that we have 60 Amendments down and are not making the progress we would desire? How can a Government who claim to be planners produce a Bill of this sort and then admit to the House that they have not the necessary staff or machinery to put it into operation?
We have grave doubts that they will be able to find rent officers of sufficient calibre to undertake this work. We were told yesterday that it was doubted whether the valuation officers of the Inland Revenue had done a proper job. We know they have not. Surely, before we accept the rejection of this Amendment, we must have evidence from the Minister that he has the necessary machinery to get these people appointed. There is no sense in working throughout the night to get a Bill through which we know cannot operate.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I would like an answer from the right hon. Gentleman on this question, which arises out of the Amendment. He will surely agree that there are some parts of the country where the provisions of this Bill will be unnecessary. This is a blanket Measure by which one is creating restrictions and, at the same time, creating machinery by which they can be removed. This seems completely foreign to the right hon. Gentleman's nature, because he is a great cutter of red tape and a getter of things done. Yet, by producing the Bill, all over the country he has created unnecessary restrictions and uncertainty about the length of time they will operate,


although he has said they can be removed by the provisions of this Clause.
Our Amendment suggests that the whole thing can be got rid of more quickly, and I hope that he will give an indication of the length of time those affected by the Bill will have to wait until they are freed once more.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) that the Parliamentary Secretary's reply was really quite extraordinary. The hon. Gentleman himself gave substantial support to the proposition put forward in this Amendment. He said that the Prevention from Eviction Act was successful and was working well. He went on to say that if there were the gap between the Bill becoming law and its operation which would result from this Amendment, there would be anarchy.
I take his point that the Prevention from Eviction Act expires at the end of this year, but if he or the Minister thinks that this gap would run into next year it would be perfectly simple to make a one-Clause addition to the Bill to extend the Prevention from Eviction Act to whatever period was thought necessary or, alternatively, to take powers to extend it by Order for such periods as might be required. That might be yet another item of work for another place to add to those items that have already been suggested in this Chamber this afternoon—or rather, this morning.
The Parliamentary Secretary really answered himself. There need be no anarchy if this were done. Therefore, the real purpose seems to be that when this gap appears it shall have the effect of completely freezing rents, and the longer the right hon. Gentleman is in carrying through his highly ambitious scheme the longer will rents be frozen without any possibility of the landlord concerned obtaining any increase. There will not be a freeze in repair and maintenance costs; all there will be will be a freeze of rents right up the scale. That seems to me to be a wholly unreasonable proposition. I do not know whether it is intended—I rather think that it probably is—but if that were intended it would be more appropriate for the Parliamentary Secretary to avow it.
The right hon. Gentleman is taking on an enormous task. As the leading article in what is now yesterday's edition of The Times makes clear, he is proposing to set up an elaborate system throughout the country. He will have to recruit for it not only rent officers to cover the whole of the country, but members, whom he admits will have to be highly qualified, of the rent assessment committees. We are now towards the end of the month of June. The Bill is not yet law. Nobody knows when—if it does so—it will become law. But the right hon. Gentleman has told us nothing of any success that he has had in any preliminary arrangements, in any recruiting effort, to obtain the necessary people to man this elaborate nation-wide administrative machine.
The right hon. Gentleman told us on an earlier Amendment of his intention to set up this machinery first in the great conurbations. No doubt, from many points of view, that is right, but it means that this rent freeze will be carried on longest in the areas where, as has been stated, the justification is least—In the remotest parts of the country.
Here, once again, we are up against the mess into which the right hon. Gentleman has got himself because of his insistence on a universal system for the Bill, a system applied throughout the country and up to very high rateable values. By insisting on that he has taken on himself an administrative task that many people, not unfriendly to him, think is doomed to failure and likely to be unworkable. He is now adding to that task the further difficulty that the delay inescapable in dealing with so large an administrative operation is certain to cause a gap after the Bill is law, and a gap the effect of which will be to freeze rents and virtually nothing else by not extending the Protection from Eviction Act.
That, we have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary, has been a success. We are left, therefore, with a position that is wholly unsatisfactory, but we have at least gained one thing from the discussion of this Amendment—a clearer view of what the right hon. Gentleman's intentions really are. As long as he gets the rent freeze he is not worrying very much about the subsequent steps.
The right hon. Gentleman has not been able to assure us when these steps will be taken. He has not been able to give us any dates when he can guarantee that the rent officer or the rent assessment committee will be there. The Parliamentary Secretary muttered a few optimistic hopes that it would not be long, but even he did not give us any firm date. Even if he could not do that, he could surely have given us a period from the date of Royal Assent if real preparations had been made. It is only really effective preparations that could justify the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary taking the attitude they have taken.
The fact that we are discussing this very important matter shortly before dawn, and I think I am right, at this time of the year, in that assertion, means that perhaps people outside may not become as well aware of what the right hon. Gentleman is doing as they should be. We will do our best outside to remedy this. Meanwhile, we have at least elicited that the right hon. Gentleman's intentions towards landlords are consistent with his avowed hostility to them.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from "London" to end and to insert:
£300, in the Special Review Areas in England and Wales (as defined by sections 17(1)(a) and (2), section 25 and the Third Schedule of the Local Government Act 1958) £150, in Scotland £75, and elsewhere in Great Britain £100".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment the House can discuss Amendment No. 68, and, if necessary, a Division can later take place on that Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: You have indicated, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we will now discuss Amendments Nos. 3 and 68, although reserving in the latter case, when we get to it, the opportunity for a Division.
The Amendment raises an issue of major importance, and I hope that you will not charge me with tedious repetition when I suggest that it is utterly wrong

that because of the wish of the right hon. Gentleman it should have to be discussed at this hour of the morning.

Mr. Crossman: Not my wish.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman says it is not his wish. But it was he, when the House had already concluded a sitting of nine and a half hours, who rejected a proposal to adjourn the debate. It was the right hon. Gentleman who took advantage of his majority to insist upon that, and it is nonsense for him to say now that it is not his wish. It is a direct consequence of the way in which he and his colleagues conduct the business of the Government. It is a little farcical that he then seeks to slide out of the responsibility. The responsibility is his and he must accept it here and now.
This Amendment is of major importance because it deals with the scope of the Bill. Throughout our discussions, we have urged upon the right hon. Gentleman, and we shall continue to urge, that he has extended the scope of the Bill too far.
We accept—and I have made this clear on more than one occasion—that there is a case for security of tenure and, therefore, for a system of rent regulation for property up to a reasonable value in London, and very probably in the great conurbations. But we do not accept that there is a case for applying this system right up the scale.
The Bill proposes to apply it to property of a rateable value up to £400 a year in London and £200 a year in the rest of the country, and we suggest that that figure is absurdly high. The objections to putting it too high are clear. First, the application of control where it is not necessary has the wholly unnecessary effect of drying up the supply of provision of accommodation to let. That gives to every landlord a strong incentive, if he can get possession of his property, to sell rather than to let it again. That is one of the evil consequences of control. Where it is necessary because of real shortage of accommodation to provide the control, I think most hon. Members on either side of the House think it is right to accept that disadvantage, but the fact that that disadvantage is there is an overwhelmingly powerful argument against applying the control at any higher point than it is needed.
3.45 a.m.
We argue that the Bill carries the system of control far too high up the scale, £400 rateable value in London and £200 in the country. We propose to substitute £300 for £400 in London and £150 for the special review areas in England and Wales—a useful method of dealing with and describing the great conurbations, £100 a year elsewhere in Great Britain and £75 a year in Scotland. Those figures arise almost inevitably from the discussion we had on Amendments proposing somewhat different figures in Committee. I take them each separately. In London, the area of shortage is not just a matter of guesswork, as it could be argued to be in other parts of the country.
The scope of the area of shortage is a matter to which the Milner Holland Committee gave attention. The House will remember that the right hon. Gentleman hailed the Milner Holland Report as a great and valuable social document, a view with which I associated myself. It is a matter of general agreement that that Report was one of the most useful contributions to this problem that we have seen. The only difference between the two sides of the House is that we accepted those recommendations rather more fully than did the right hon. Gentleman. It is a fine Report. On page 179, the Milner Holland Committee deals with the question of property where there is shortage.
I will read a passage at the bottom of that page, in Chapter 8, headed "Insecurity of Tenure":
In a state of the market for rented property where supply and demand, at all levels of rent and for all types of property, are in proper balance, these conditions no doubt would operate without causing trouble; but where, as in London, there is an acute shortage of accommodation for renting, at any rate in the range of rents lower than about £400 per annum, the consequences for tenants are obviously serious.
I ask the House to particularly note the following sentence:
We are satisfied, on the evidence before us, that there is plenty of good accommodation for rent in London at rentals of £400–£500 per annum and above.
As the right hon. Gentleman will remember, I quoted this passage in the Standing Committee. In my recollection he said that on this point he disagreed to some degree with the Milner Holland recommendation and thought that the area of plentiful supply began a little

higher; I think he said £50 or £100 higher. We thought that by putting the figure of rateable value at £300 a year we would meet the right hon. Gentleman's point. The figures in Milner Holland are, of course, figures relating to rents. The figures in the Bill relate to rateable value. It is true that as far as London is concerned to find out what the rents ruling are in relation to the rateable value one takes a figure of slightly more than 2, perhaps 2¼. A rateable value of £300 a year will, therefore, be in respect of property with rents of a little over £600 a year and up to £650.
Taking the right hon. Gentleman's difference from Milner Holland, and the highest figure of Milner Holland, one gets a figure where rents at the moment are about £550 to £600. By taking a figure of £300 a year rateable value we have not only covered the Milner Holland recommendation, but we have adequately covered the right hon. Gentleman's expressed difference from it. In other words, no property would be taken out of regulation in London which is not in the area where Milner Holland and the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no shortage.
It seems that we have met the right hon. Gentleman and for my part I would argue that a lower figure is justified. But we are anxious to come to a conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman can, on his own showing, accept. If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman would be very unreasonable not to accept this figure.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me for the slightly complicated exposition of this because it is very important in respect of London, and London is the worst case of the figure being too high. It is quite ridiculous to apply control to property rated at £400 annually. Rents for this sort of property are £800 or £900 a year. The position becomes even worse when one combines the effect of this Clause with Clause 33, where the same limits apply to furnished accommodation. Furnished accommodation in London with a rateable value of £400 a year has a rent of anything up to £1,100.
Not only is there, on the showing of the Milner Holland Report, no shortage in this area, but there is something ridiculous in introducing machinery for rent


control, rent officers, fair rents and rent assessment committees in respect of people whose incomes are such that they can afford rents of this order. It is a waste of public money and it puts an unnecessary strain on the administrative machine, which, as I said on the previous Amendment, is likely to take some time to set up and certainly is likely to be subject to very great strain. The right hon. Gentleman would not only be consistent with his own argument, but serving his own purpose of making a good job of this system if he were to accept our figure.
In the other areas there is no comparable information available, but it is possible to draw certain conclusions. In the great conurbations there is a shortage, but the rents and rateable values prevailing are considerably lower than in London. It is for this reason that the trade unions, in their national wage agreements, have higher rates for London. It is also for this reason that the Civil Service applies special London rates for the various grades of staff. It is accepted that rents and rateable values in London are appreciably higher for comparable accommodation than they are in other parts of the country.
Therefore, if, for the reasons I have tried to demonstrate, £300 a year is a good figure for London, I think that £150 will be right for the conurbations, and on that basis £100 a year would be more than generous for the rest of the country. In the country districts the figure at present in the Bill, of £200 a year, is absurdly high. It covers certainly what most of us would call country houses, places occupied by people who are in no need of the protection of such a governmental system such as this. It is a waste of public money and time and effort to bring them within the scheme. In fixing a figure of £100 for the country areas of Great Britain, outside Scotland, we have fixed it, if anything, on the high side.
For Scotland, we propose a figure of £75. The Under-Secretary has often told us how values are lower in Scotland. We had passionate argument this morning with certain Scottish Members about the very small houses that there are in Scotland. It follows that the values would

be very small indeed. We had an interesting revelation during the Standing Committee proceedings as to how the £200 a year rateable value would apply in Scotland. The Under-Secretary was good enough to find out for us how many houses in Scotland would be above that value and, therefore, outside the control. In the whole of Scotland, he told us, there would be 500 houses.
That is not the figure, as I understand, of houses that are let, but which could be let and continue to be let free of control—that is, the total number of houses above that value, the great majority not let. This is carrying rent control not merely to the cottage, the house and the mansion, but to the castle. It is the reductio ad absurdum of Socialist theory in this matter to carry rent control and regulation to the level that only 500 houses in Scotland are excluded.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: There are not castles under rent control in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman must not believe that because there are 500 houses, therefore some castles are under control.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, because some of them are not let, but can the Under-Secretary say that anything called a castle would not be under control?

Dr. Mabon: All the properties over £200 are substantial properties, but they are not in control. Those below are certainly not castles.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman says that nothing called a castle is below £200 in value I shall assume that he has made the enquiry. I express surprise because he knows there are many very comfortable mansions in Scotland, or sometimes rather uncomfortable ones, which claim castellar status in their nomenclature, without being fortresses of that terrifying order which would overawe the neighbouring town.
I think that the Under Secretary would be wise to accept castles that could be brought under control. There are castles in Spain as well as in Scotland. The figures speak for themselves; 500 houses in the whole of Scotland which, if let, would be excluded. That is making legislation ridiculous and the Under Secretary knows that as well as anyone

 
else. We have gone to some trouble, as I hope the House will agree, from the way I have tried to explain it, to establish figures which, accepting the right hon. Gentleman's own exception, are reasonable. I am not saying that it would be necessary to go as high as this.
What we have endeavoured to do has been to meet, not our own ideas, but the right hon. Gentleman's principles as he has outlined them in the Bill, but we have tried to apply figures which are reasonable in that context. The figures in the Bill are plainly unreasonable. They are, in London and in Scotland, perhaps particularly and noticeably excessive. They are high elsewhere. The figures which I suggest may well be too high. They are at least nearer to a point which would be a point of common sense. They are nearer to a reasonable level. It is for that reason that I have moved the Amendment.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Perhaps I may say something to help him and the House on the question of the castles that would be controlled as a result of the provisions of the Bill, but which might be decontrolled as a result of our Amendment.
The House might care to know that the house in which I live in the country, if the stable buildings and the cottage attached to the back were removed, would have a rateable value of less than £200 although it has about 50 rooms. The larger the house, the lower the rateable value on the scale to which one works. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who suggested that all castles throughout Scotland were excluded, was completely wrong, and, no doubt, they are all safely embraced within the provisions of this ridiculous Bill.
In drawing attention to the fact that there is a very poor attendance on the Government benches, may I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that fewer than 40 Members are present?

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Cooke: Now that a few Members on the Government side have deigned to come into the Chamber, we might proceed

to examine the Amendment, because it is reasonable to reduce the figures which appear in the Bill.
What is right for London is not right for the provinces. This point has been made by the Minister. We accept that things are different in London and the provinces. The point which I wish to make, which is embodied in our Amendment, is that not all provincial problems are alike and that there are parts of the provinces which should be completely excluded. Our Amendment does not go as far as that. It goes some way in that direction. I hope that the Minister will be inspired to think again now that we have given him the opportunity to do so.
Bristol is a case in point where the provisions of the Amendment might do us some good. In my constituency of Bristol, West we have a large proportion of older property. Modern council houses in my constituency are virtually non-existent; the ony modern council houses are of a prefabricated nature and were constructed during the war. Unless the Amendment is accepted, the life of the older houses will not be maintained.
These older buildings provide useful homes, and some have considerable architectural merit. The right hon. Gentleman may not agree with some of my political observations, but I am sure that he will not wish to do anything that will harm the architectural character of the older parts of some of our historic cities which still go on providing useful homes for many people.
Many of the Acts which were passed in the past were designed to prevent the decline of this sort of property, and unless the Amendment is accepted that sort of property will decline at a greater rate than it is now the case. Indeed, some of it is being satisfactorily preserved by previous enactments but this process will be reversed unless the Amendment is accepted.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was prejudiced against landlords, but let him remember that in many cases they own one, two, or at most three houses. They are modest properties, but not so modest that they are not within the scope of this provision, and instead of finding themselves in the position of being free to develop and improve their properties, they will find themselves once more restricted.
The Minister will appreciate that one of the great impediments in the way of improving these older properties and turning them into more economic dwellings and flats—redeveloping them, if I may use such an unattractive word to describe what can be an attractive proposition—is the statutory tenant, and the process of redevelopment will be hindered because one will find oneself with many more statutory tenants than one had before. The statutory tenant has always been a great impediment to the bringing up to date of these properties, because if there is a tenant in a part of the building it makes it difficult to reconstruct and improve it. The landlord can do nothing about that tenant, and the property goes into decline.
Yesterday's Daily Express carried the story of some negotiations by a large property company. This is a big thing, not just a case of a small private owner being involved. The negotiations fell through because of the provisions of the Bill. Many more controlled tenancies will result from the legislation proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The whole thing has fallen through, and the City will not benefit from a great and imaginative scheme.
I want to stress the effect which not accepting the Amendment will have on the sort of property that I have in my constituency. I am talking not about the big landlords, but about the owners of one, two, or three properties. The uncertainty which the Bill will create will slow up the process of improvement. The gradual process of decontrol which has been going on during recent years—in my view, not fast enough—in the provinces, where the difficulties of London do not obtain, has made for the more economic use of buildings and the redevelopment and conversion of houses, either on their own or in pairs, into flats. The one impediment to this process has been the protected tenant. As I see it, there will be many more protected tenants as a result of the provisions that we are discussing, and the process to which I have referred will be slowed up and indeed halted.
It is not difficult to find an isolated statutory tenant somewhere else to go. Of course, a tenant may die, or move of

his own volition, or be rehoused by the local authority. If, however, a lot more people are to be given protected tenancies, the whole thing will become more difficult. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not say that these people should have been protected in any case, that they should be looked after, and that it would be wrong to allow them to carry on in the state of uncertainty in which they lived before. The sort of people that we are protecting now were not in a protected position when they went into the tenancies. They are now getting a new privilege.
I know that there are different circumstances in London. In the provinces, and in my constituency of Bristol, the same sort of conditions do not obtain. I hope that in the course of the debate the right hon. Gentleman will have second thoughts. No doubt many of my hon. Friends would wish to support the Amendment. I do not want to weary the House with my problem, but the right hon. Gentleman has been a most sympathetic Minister in relation to the difficult problem of preserving older property and making it fit for modern use. He has responded most nobly to all the suggestions and requests that I have made to him on matters affecting my constituency, and buildings of architectural and sometimes historic merit outside. He has been most lively to use his powers. It is a stange paradox that whereas he has done a magnificent job for me in this matter—

Mr. William Baxter: Why do a magnificent job for you?

Mr. Cooke: It is typical of the attitude of hon. Members opposite—that it is wrong for a Labour Minister to do something that a Tory Member wants. It is not for the benefit of a Tory Member; it is for the benefit of the community—the City of Bristol and the countryside. The right hon. Gentleman has been most courageous in using his powers and in making local authorities use theirs, and it is typical of the grudging attitude of the Left wing of the Labour Party that it cannot allow him credit for doing that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be as stringent with some of the gentlemen on the left of his own party


on this occasion as he was on another, when he dealt with them at some length.
It seems a strange paradox that whereas he is well aware of the problems which exist in the older residential areas of our great cities, and has taken such a personal interest in these problems, he is throwing all this into jeopardy by the provisions of the Bill. The Amendment will go some way towards helping to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from doing the damage that he seems to be going to do.
It does not go far enough, but we must not stray into that sort of discussion, because it would be out of order. At any rate, it does go somewhere, and in accepting the Amendment or saying something favourable about it the right hon. Gentleman could give an undertaking to go even further in special cases. The difficulty about the Bill is that it has a blanket effect all over the country. It is a clumsy way of dealing with the problem which exists in certain areas, and all the areas not suffering from that problem are nevertheless caught by the restrictions.
The right hon. Gentleman has been notable in cutting through red tape and restrictions in order to get things done, but here he has unfortunately, and perhaps unwittingly—although he must now realise what he is doing—put more restrictions and difficulties in the way of the proper use of residential property of one kind and another, particularly the older and more historic and architectually interesting property. I hope that he will show the same courage this evening as he has on previous occasions. I am sure that he would not want his monument to be the fact that in future people will be housed in little boxes made of ticky-tacky—to use the phrase of a popular song—and that he will not drive out of existence, by the provisions of the Bill, the older properties which it will not be worth while for small landlords to maintain or try to improve.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have second thoughts and try, somehow, to allow the prejudice that he has in favour of the preservation and more fruitful use of older buildings to outweigh the prejudice he has told the House about in respect of the private landlord.

I hope that in this case the reasonable prejudice will prevail.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: Of the more than 100 Amendments on the Notice Paper, this Amendment is perhaps the most moderate, the most reasonable and the most sensible, and the one which would check most of the harm—if not all of it—within the Bill, if only the right hon. Gentleman could be induced, if not to accept it, at least to consider the implications which lie behind it.
I will not address myself to the problems of London, which I do not seek to represent, but I would claim to know something of the problems of South Dorset. Those problems are not untypical of the English countryside as a whole, which, after all, whatever may be needs of London, still constitutes a considerable portion of the country.
We have heard about castles in Scotland. I will not answer for them, but I know something of manor houses in Dorset. There are numbers of manor houses in Dorset which are rated at under £200 a year. It is totally unnecessary to set up this great machine and apparatus of assessment committees, rent officers, "Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all" to deal with tenants who do not require such protection, who do not need it, do not ask for it and do not want it. Again and again in Committee, I sought to ask the Minister whether he had any evidence from persons living in Dorset, in rural England and the small towns whose houses are rated above £100 a year, for any problem or grievance of any kind in connection with eviction. There is no such evidence.
I would go further and say that if one considers many of the smaller towns in Dorset today, even at the council house level, one will find that supply and demand are now beginning to match one another. Even in a little borough like Wareham, which is typical of the sort of place which I represent, one finds that the number of houses being built by the local authority and the number of demands for them, even at the lowest level, are matching one another within 18 months. The housing problem of that part of the country bears no resemblance whatever to the problem of the slums of London on


which Milner Holland reported and the base on which the Bill is, quite reasonably, founded.
It must be true, as the Minister has said, that we are short of valuers and skilled staff of all kinds. There is overheating in the whole of the administrative and local authority and valuing staff in the country. Why waste it on a problem which, as the Minister knows perfectly well, does not even begin to exist, and of the existence of which he has produced not one iota of evidence? I do not know how I can produce evidence to the contrary. I can only say that during the whole of my time as a Member of Parliament for South Dorset, and before that as a candidate, I have never had one problem which affected a house the rateable value of which exceeded £100 a year, which affected a rental or possible eviction. The right hon. Gentleman sets himself up as Don Quixote, dealing with windmills which are not there and for which he has no evidence and which, I have no doubt, his own officials have told him are not there.
I believe that to hon. Members opposite just as much as to hon. Members on this side of the House, this is known to be so. That is why I urge the House to accept the Amendment, which would retain all the beneficial parts of the Bill and target them upon tenants, houses and landlords where they are needed. I have no doubt that in London they are needed. Equally, I have no doubt that in those parts of the countryside which I have described they are not needed, that they are, to use a local authority phrase, an "unjustifiable intrusion into the countryside".
This is why I hope that the right hon. Gentleman—this is the last time that I shall have the chance to make this plea to him—will consider rateable values and how he can target the relief which he wants to bring to areas where it will be used and not areas where it will be useless and unwanted.

Mr. Arthur Jones: The purpose of the Amendment is to make the whole question of control more selective—not to apply to overall figures of £400 in London and £200 elsewhere, but to bring rateable values to bear at

differing figures throughout various parts of England and Wales, and a figure is mentioned for Scotland. It is designed to get away from the rigidity of the Government's proposals, which have never been fully explained or justified.
Time and again we have questioned the method of selecting the figures of £400 and £200 and on what they are based. There is evidence to show that, to some extent, there has been a mix up between rents and rateable values because while the Minister explained the appearance of the figure of £400 in the Milner Holland Report, and we find that figure used in the Bill for London, one figure referred to rents and the other to rateable values.
Evidence is available from other figures, and I have with me a list of the rateable values in parts of the country related to the capital values of properties. The absurdity of the right hon. Gentleman's figures are clearly shown. For example, in Abingdon a property with a rateable value of £198 is worth £10,500 or more. In South Kensington, a property with a rateable value of £388 is valued at £14,950. A flat in South Kensington with a rateable value of £367 is worth £12,900. In Leicester, a property with a rateable value of £194 is worth £8,000. In Manchester, a property in the better suburbs with a rateable value of £200 is valued at between £7,000 and £8,000. In the West Yorkshire Special Review Area there are three examples I will quote. Each property has a rateable value of £200, but the capital value of one in Linton is £12,000, in Harrogate it is between £12,000 and £15,000 and in Doncaster it is £10,000.
Are not these properties well outside the limits of the Bill and do they not demonstrate the very heavy hand the Government are bringing to bear on the whole question and their complete un-selectivity from the point of view of geographical location and the rateable values of hereditaments.
We have discovered from our debates on this issue that only after the Bill becomes law will the Government begin to make it slightly more selective. It is now, before it becomes law, that the selection should be made. Time and again the Minister has said that there is inadequate information about the housing problem.


Does that not justify a moderate Amendment of this sort? There is no apparent evidence that the Government will accept an Amendment of this sort, and I can only warn them that the tremendous amount of work which will be involved may cause great difficulties when the Government administer the Bill.
Another question is that the lack of properties available for letting will occur to a far greater degree with the Bill as drawn than would be the case if the control were made on a far more selective basis.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: When the Government gave us notice that they intended to introduce the Bill, to deal, as I understood it, with a system of fair rents and a system of security of tenure, and to deal with obvious hardship which existed in certain parts of the country, particularly in our big cities, I, as Member for one of the south London constituencies with a housing problem, a constituency very typical of those discussed at length in the Milner Holland Report, was one of the first to welcome this suggestion.
Indeed, I still have hopes that the Bill, when it becomes law, if it becomes law, will help to alleviate the very considerable burdens which still fall on certain tenants in certain areas of the rented property market, but if we are to be able to deal expeditiously and efficiently with those cases of hardship which exist then it is surely absolutely essential that we do not overburden the machinery to deal with those cases of hardship by including within the ambit of the Bill properties which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered to be likely to house people with real hardship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) has just listed some of the capital values of the properties which would be affected by this Clause—I live in a very similar house myself—houses with a rateable value below £400, and yet houses which sell on the market in the £14,000 bracket. Surely it is absolutely ludicrous that we should be including in this system of regulation houses of this type. By including this type of property one is spreading the net of rent control over such a large area that we shall, I believe,

shrink the rented market rather than enlarge it, because a lot of landlords who will be affected by the Bill will be thinking to themselves that if they go ahead and continue letting their properties they will find themselves under the control envisaged in the Bill and that with this measure of security of tenure to the tenants and a rigid system of rent fixing it is better not to let any more but to sell and get out of the market altogether. I can envisage a situation in which the rented market will shrink very fast indeed.
If one is to help in any way to solve the housing situation in the great cities then one must take seriously the recommendations of Milner Holland, who said categorically that the private landlord had a very important rôle to play, and that if we penalise the private landlord over too big an area, far from having more rented accommodation we shall have less. I suggest to the Minister that the £300 rateable value we are proposing for London is a thoroughly reasonable figure. It takes in properties with rents up to £600 plus. Milner Holland says that there is plenty of accommodation at £400 plus. I can prove this in my own constituency. So let us hope that the Minister will accept this extremely reasonable Amendment and so ensure that those people who are in real need are protected by the machinery the Bill will set up, rather than overload the machinery with people who are not in need at all.

4.30 a.m.

Sir A. Meyer: I think that everyone, except the fundamentalists, on both sides of the House, accepts the need for some kind of rent regulation and accepts the fact that there is room for discussion as to what is the right level at which to begin this regulation. I have some reason to believe the Minister is more open-minded as to the correct level than he has so far shown himself to be in the course of this morning's debate.
What happens if the level is fixed too low? What would be the effect, quite apart from the effect on castles in Scotland and ancient property in Bristol, in towns just outside the great conurbations? Perhaps I could look at the effect on my own constituency, as being fairly typical of the sort of towns that surround London. For every case that comes to my


"surgery" of people complaining that their rent is too high, I get at least 20 cases of people who come to me in a desperate state because they cannot find accommodation at all at any rent for themselves and their children. It is very difficult to find any kind of accommodation that will accept small children.
I have plenty of people who are prepared to pay £4, £5, £6, or even £7, a week to get two- or three-room accommodation. What is to be the effect of starting applying the rent regulation at about this level of £7 to £8 a week, which is what would happen if the Amendment we are proposing is rejected? Apart from the question that my hon. Friend for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair Wilson) referred to, of houses being taken right out of the market altogether, the effect will be that of bringing these rents of £4 to £5 a week down to a figure which we do not know exactly because we do not know the sort of criteria by which the rent assessment committees will work.
Let us suppose that it will mean a difference of roughly a £1 a week. What would happen then? There will be a few people who have not been able to afford accommodation who will be able to get it, but the supply of this sort of accommodation is just about right at the moment. There is a possibility that we might be able to fill one or two empty places, but Slough, and a great many places like it, are extremely attractive areas because of the amenities, the full employment, the proximity to London that makes them attractive to commuters. The effect will be to bring in extra people competing for the accommodation that is available at the lower level. As a result, we shall get an even worse housing situation in these areas than we have at present.
What worries me is that those who are now mistakenly blessing the Minister for having introduced the Bill may, unless he sees reason to adjust his views about the level at which the regulation should begin, end by cursing him.

Mr. Lubbock: The Tories seem to like all-night sittings. The arguments that I have heard in this debate are precisely the same as those advanced during the Committee stage, when we were discussing somewhat similar Amendments. I

have listened carefully and I have heard nothing new at all. It seems to me that the purpose of a Report stage is to ventilate matters that have not been adequately dealt with in Committee.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman studied our Amendment he would realise we have gone a long way to meet the points made by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee when dealing with these particular figures. In the case of London, we have altered our figure to £300 rateable value to meet the points made by the Minister.

Mr. Lubbock: I have heard nothing in the speeches to prove to me that hon. Gentlemen on this side have appreciated the arguments put by the Minister, which seemed to make a lot of sense. I wish to redress the balance. I know hon. Gentlemen opposite are muzzled by their Whips, because they like to complete the Report stage as quickly as possible. It is left to me to defend the Minister, and I do so with great pleasure, because I think that he has a good case on this particular Amendment.
I find it difficult to understand why the Tories are so worried about the rateable value limits which are set in the Bill. They seem to be primarily concerned with properties at the top end of the rateable value scale, whereas I must confess I am more interested in the ones at the bottom end of the scale. Those are the ones about which we ought to be most concerned. We have paid a lot of lip-service to Milner Holland in this House and in Committee upstairs, yet we seem to spend more time discussing properties with rateable values varying between £200 and £400, the capital value of which ranges, we were told by one hon. Gentleman, from £7,000 to £14,950.
In relation to what that hon. Gentleman said, I quite agree with him that our immediate object is to deal with hardship, but we are also concerned with arriving at a fair scale of rents from the cheapest properties to the most expensive that are dealt with under the Bill.
The Minister explained very convincingly in Committee, I think, that the rateable value limits had been set higher than the level where scarcity applies on purpose, so that one could read across right down the scale. There is an area


at the top of the scale where free market conditions prevail and rents are settled at arm's length between landlord and tenant. Therefore, what the Minister said was that one could "pro rata" those down to give a guide to what fair rents ought to be where scarcity begins to bite.
In Greater London, a property with a rateable value of £400 has a rent of, say, £400. I am trying to keep my illustration as simple as possible; these figures are not meant to represent the actual situation at all. If scarcity did not apply at a lower level, one would expect a property with a rateable value of £300 similarly to have a rental of £300. I think that it is a sensible feature of the Bill that we have purposely set these rateable value limits higher than necessary to cover the case of scarcity, in order to give us that sort of guide.
I do not share the fears of hon. Gentlemen who say that landlords in this class will gel out of the market and sell their properties for owner-occupation. On the Minister's own admission, we are not talking about a sector in which a shortage persists. The rents in this sector are arrived at on an arm's length basis, and the landlords have nothing to fear from regulations. They will go to the rent officer in conjunction with their tenants and say that the rent which has been agreed between them is £X, and that will be registered as the rent of the property. What could be simpler than that?
This also deals with the point made about the additional burden which will be imposed on the rent officers and rent assessment committees by setting these limits unnecessarily high. First, there are not so many properties in this range as there are at the bottom end. Secondly, one will not impose much load on the machinery if in nearly every case the rent is agreed between the landlord and the tenant and it is merely a matter of making an entry in the register, without any of the meetings between landlord and tenant under the auspices of the rent officer, or appeals to the rent assessment committee which can be expected in cases where there is any dispute.
For these reasons, therefore, I think that this discussion has not taken us any further than we got in Committee, and it would be as well if we reached a

quick conclusion. I am afraid that whatever arguments we have tonight, and whether or not we go on to nine o'clock, this is a matter on which it is impossible for the two sides to agree.

Mr. Crossman: It might be for the convenience of the House if I were to intervene at this stage to state our view of this not unimportant Amendment. I have listened very carefully to the speeches, and I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—I had heard them before. It is true that the proposals are somewhat different, and I appreciate the care with which hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken in reviewing the proposals and making their suggestions, but the arguments in favour of them were almost identical with those we have heard before.
One is, perhaps, entitled to do that in Committee, but if we try to measure this Amendment in terms of its seriousness, I think, if I may say so with respect to hon. Members opposite, that it does just a little exaggerate the devastating effect there would be if we set the rateable value limits slightly high. As I see it, and as we discussed it in Committee, it is a question of guessing, and of deciding on which side of the balance it is better to put it. Is it better to be too high or too low in fixing the rateable value?
No one who cares about security of tenure, which is the issue we are deciding here, can have any doubt that, if we are to have a fault it had better be in being above rather than in being below. I doubt whether anyone, even hon. Gentlemen opposite, would disagree with that statement—

Mr. Costain: rose—

Mr. Crossman: No, I have listened to hon. Members opposite for a long time without interrupting, and I hope that the hon. Member will have the patience to listen to me now.
I think that I got agreement from hon. Gentlemen opposite that the right thing to do was to give the benefit of the doubt to the tenant and put the thing somewhat higher than absolutely necessary. I agree that it is very much anyone's guess what the value should be. If the Bill did not include a specific provision by which one can vary the level of rateable value region


by region by Order we would be discussing something very serious, but as we have carefully made this a flexible provision, and have given ourselves perfect opportunity to lower it if we find that we have put it somewhat too high, I do not see any reason why we should be so desperately anxious to say that we must get it exactly right, and must bring it down a little, because it might be that with experience we would find that the proper level was £50, £60, or £100 below the level we had fixed. The proper level here is not a point, but a band of the spectrum.
I pointed out in the Committee—and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington for reminding us—that there were two reasons that made us feel that it was wiser to put the balance too high, if anything, rather than too low. One was the quite simple fact that we had done it in the Protection from Eviction Act, where we had fixed the figure at £400, which was the county court level. Above that was the High Court level, so it was simpler to fix it along with the county courts.
The other argument is one that I should like to repeat. In the formula for fixing fair rent, it will be very important for us to go, not to the areas under the limit where supply and demand are really matched, because we do not want to reach that, and in any case it is very difficult to find that level. We must not go to an area where there is a scarcity of any sort, but somewhere near it. That means that we have to go rather wide, because we need a wide range in order to estimate what the scarcity is.
Therefore, I was strongly advised that for this reason it was preferable to set the level high so that one could calculate down. If one reached up to the level where the market rent was approximating to a fair rent, it would be easier to estimate and calculate down where one was having to estimate rents at a lower level. These were the reasons that made me come to the conclusions which I did to keep for the time being the levels we fixed in the Protection From Eviction Bill.
I do not deny for one moment that the guesses made in this Amendment may, or may not, prove accurate. It is likely

that the guess based on London will be better than the guess based on other areas because it has a little more information behind it from the Milner Holland Report. But one of the few statements in the Milner Holland Report which is challenged by people whose judgment I respect is the statement that above £400 a year scarcity ceases. The more I have studied that, the less convinced I am that Milner Holland was here strictly accurate, although I am willing to be proved wrong.
I would prefer to keep things as they are, however, with the clear understanding given to hon. Gentlemen opposite that the moment it is made clear that below the level there is no scarcity we would make an Order and bring the level down. It is known that this power exists in the Bill, and I would hope that having given that assurance to the House, we could move on to further important Clauses which we have to discuss.

4.45 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister, despite his sweet and reasonable tone, is being obstinate and pigheaded here, although he is capable of being generous and tolerant. This really is a stupid idea that one brings in property in which there is no shortage at all, that one merely brings it into the Act in order to see what happens to it.
This is the reason which the right hon. Gentleman has given for putting the rateable values at this high figure. He says that there is a margin on these higher figures in which there is no shortage at all, but he just wants to see what happens and get some judgment through that margin. Are these figures of £200 and £400 set out in the Bill too high? Of course they are too high. There is no shortage of property at these high rateable values, and one of the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave for holding to these figures and opposing this Amendment was that these figures of £400 rateable value in London and £200 in the provinces had been put into the Protection from Eviction Act.
I have not got the right hon. Gentleman's attention, but I would be grateful for it, because this is one of the reasons he gave that these figures were in the Protection from Eviction Act. But the


Act was before Milner Holland. We have had the Milner Holland figures since then and the Milner Holland Report has shown that in London there is no shortage at this very high figure. When we are talking about rateable values of £400 a year, this is property rented at £1,000 or £1,200 a year, penthouses in St. James's at £1,200 a year.
The right hon. Gentleman may screw up his eyes, but this is the figure which he is setting. He is setting a £400 rateable value for furnished property in London, and the rents of furnished property at that rateable value will be over £1,000 a year. He is dragging into this procedure manor houses in Dorset, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) referred, luxury flats in Mayfair, stately homes in England and near-castles, if not actual castles, in Scotland. He is setting up a Parkinsonian structure with a trade union official to sit in judgment on it.
This is an amazing situation. It will be hard enough to find rent officers to deal with the ordinary landlord and tenant who need a fair rent to be fixed. Why pile this work on to those officers? The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said that he was concerned with tenants on the lower scale; so am I. The right hon. Gentleman will deprive these deserving tenants of the right to have their cases heard if he clutters up this procedure with the question of high rents.

Mr. Lubbock: If as the hon. Member say, and I do not dispute this, free market conditions obtain at the upper end of the scale and rents have been developed between landlord and tenant at arms length and there is no dispute, how can this clutter up the machinery?

Mr. Graham Page: Apparently the hon. Member has not read the Bill. The rent agreed between the landlord and tenant is not the rent recoverable by the tenant. The hon. Member said that if they agreed they would go before the rent officer and have the rent registered, but the rent officer is not bound by the agreement between the landlord and tenant. The rent officer may say, "I think these rents charged in Mayfair are too high. I shall fix them lower and force the landlord and tenant to go before the

assessment committee." This is provided for in the Bill. If the rateable values remain at that stage in the Bill it will cause a blockage in the procedure.
If the Minister can stomach the fact that this Amendment comes from this side of the House, and accept it despite that fact, he will be grateful to us in future for helping him with the procedure and saving him from making himself look ridiculous.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: A word must be said in justification of the proposal of an upper limit of £75 for Scotland because there has been a great deal of indeterminate talk about castles in Scotland and it is as well to examine the actual position. If the Bill has any merit at all it must be to cure some sort of abuse. If racketeering or profiteering, which is undesirable, exists in Scotland, it does not exist to any great extent. There are large parts of Scotland where there is no scarcity of housing whatever. As the Under Secretary of State knows, in some parts there is a superflous number of houses due to rural depopulation. We have to look at this matter from a sensible point of view, not just from the point of view of Central London, but of the rest of the country.
To tell the House the position in Scotland, I use figures provided by the Under Secretary. At an earlier stage he told us that there are approximately 1,600,000 houses in Scotland. Of those approximately 100,000 had a rateable value of over £75 and, of that 100,000, 20,000 were let. Those are the hon. Gentleman's own figures. The number of houses which would be left uncontrolled if the upper limit of £75 were taken would be exactly 1¼ per cent. of the let houses in Scotland. That is a very small figure and when one considers the proportion of houses in Scotland which would be left out of control and compares it with other parts of the country it is nonsensical to make a blanket figure which includes practically every house in Scotland.
The Under-Secretary told us earlier that the number of houses with a rateable value of over £300 was only 500. There are 37 local authorities and this works out at 14 houses for each authority area and indicates the preposterous position. I can pretty well name all the houses concerned in my own constituency. Most


of them are let for fishing and shooting and the rents are high. There is no scarcity of this kind of house and there is no need to bring under control the remaining 1¾ per cent. which have a rateable value of over £75. If there is a scarcity of that type of house I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us because he has never before done so.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The words which I used in Committee I chose very deliberately and since then I have checked them again and I repeat them now. All the information available to the Government and all the advice that they have been able to obtain indicates that there is no substantial category of houses, including the category which the hon. Member mentioned earlier and has now referred to again which are not affected by conditions of shortage. Since the Committee stage we have looked at this again and it surprises me to hear the hon. Member tell us that, in his assessment, there is no scarcity in the counties suffering from rural depopulation. If that is true the hon. Member should tell us more about it.

Mr. Hendry: I can only suggest that the Government should improve its own intelligence services and find out and tell the House of Commons where there is scarcity in that category. There may be a slight scarcity in the City of Glasgow and the City of Edinburgh, but I have made inquiries and I can find no evidence of it. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be more specific and tell us where there is this scarcity of houses with a rateable value of over £75. He has been misinformed and I hope that he will be better informed in future.
When considering the general level of rateable values in Scotland £75 is a ridiculous figure. I venture again to refer to the survey carried out by the Scottish Development Department, and published in February. The average rent of a house controlled under old Rent Acts is £5 15s. 5d. per annum and the average rateable value of these houses is £27 16s. 7d. That bears no relation at all to the £75 figure.
I have carried my researches into this a little further. As I mentioned earlier,

the highest class of controlled house—houses with a rateable value of over £40—have an average rateable value of £51 or approximately £1 a week. This is far below the figure which I am proposing. If we look beyond controlled houses to decontrolled houses where there is a free market, we find a very interesting position. According to the hon. Gentleman's own survey we find that the average rent of decontrolled houses, free market houses, in Scotland, is £31 2s. 7d. per annum. The annual rateable value of these houses is only £25 0s. 7d., approximately one third of the figure I am suggesting. These figures seem to make it so absolutely nonsensical that we should adopt a figure even as high as £75. I think that I am being modest in making that suggestion.
5.0 a.m.
Carrying this research a little further, to the very highest class of decontrolled houses, having a rateable value of £40 per annum, or over, we find the average in that class, according to the hon. Gentleman's own survey, is £63 11s. 9d., again substantially below the proposed figure of £75. I must confess that I have a personal interest in this, because I am the owner of a house which is not under control. It is a good example. It is a Victorian villa, containing about 12 rooms, with all modern conveniences. The annual value of this house is £100 and there is certainly no scarcity of a house of this class, because I would have the very greatest difficulty in either selling or letting it.
This illustrates the point I have made, that there is no scarcity of houses in that class. In addition to that house I am a tenant in my own constituency. This is a very nice house, with six rooms, a bathroom and all modern conveniences and a glorious view, with every possible advantage, including salmon fishing. The gross annual value of this very desirable residence, of which I am the tenant is £40. These are examples of the values of houses of that class in Scotland. In my own constituency, within 10 miles of this particularly desirable house, there are at least another dozen houses, possibly not quite so desirable, but still desirable, which are lying empty.
The reason for this is twofold. One is that there is a considerable amount of


rural depopulation, farmers and farm servants have become redundant and left the district. The other reason is that these houses might possibly be used again for agricultural purposes, or for some other purpose and the landlords of these houses are scared stiff to let them because of this proposed legislation. That will happen all over the country if there is unnecessary control. People will not let their houses and will let them lie empty, either with a view to ultimate sale, which is going to be difficult in many cases, or the houses are going to fall down about their ears and that is actually happening in my own constituency where good houses have stood empty for a number of years and are now actually falling into ruin.
I was amazed at the extraordinary agument put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Eric Lubbock). He came along on behalf of what he calls the Liberal Party, which, I understand, was the party which did not approve of any control at all unless that control was necessary for some purposes. He makes the extraordinary proposition that if we set the terms too high, what does it matter?

Mr. Lubbock: I will thank the hon. Gentleman to leave me to expound the policies of the Liberal Party and can speak for the Tories.

Mr. Hendry: The policy of the Liberal Party is something which everyone ought to know about, because it affects a good many of us. I thought that it would have no controls except where those controls were necessary. Obviously, the Liberal Party's idea is purely unadulterated Socialism, probably as a result of this Lib-Lab pact we have heard about. Introduce controls and control development 98¾ per cent of all the houses in Scotland, including several castles, which I will not name.
Control everything seems to be the Liberal Party's policy now as a result, I suppose, of the Lib-Lab pact. Control everything if it causes people a lot of trouble. That is just one of the penalties of living in a Lib-Lab age. What he does not seem to understand is that if the people are in a free market and can come to a free contract among themselves about their rent, well and good; but he says, "Let them go to the rent officer and register the rent".
It is only human nature that if a tenant can go to the rent officer and complain about his rent, he will do so. This is an extraordinary proposition. I could never envisage any system in which we have a series of quite unnecessary controls. That seems to be what is proposed. I am not qualified to speak about the position in England and Wales, but I can speak with the greatest assurance of the position in Scotland. To control all houses with a rateable value of £200 or less is arrant nonsense. Even when using my top figure of £75 we would have a ridiculous situation.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: Like other hon. Members, I must declare an interest as I am both a landlord and a tenant of property which comes within the rateable values that we are discussing. I can confirm about houses in the country. Having looked up my own rateable value in the country, I find that it is £122. While I do not have a salmon river at the foot of my garden, I have a trout stream going nearby. It is ridiculous to think that country property of these types is to be brought within the ambit of the Clause.
I am more interested in rateable values in London. We need more clarification following the exchange that took place between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). It now appears that a prospective tenant and a landlord can agree to rent property to each other at a figure of £1,000 a year and that when the tenant has taken possession, he can go to the rent officer and say, "I agree that I fixed a rent of £1,000 a year but, now that I am in, I would like you to look at this figure and see whether you think that it is right." The rent officer, who might be in a rather different income bracket than a man who is prepared to pay £1,000–£1,200 a year for the accommodation, might say that he considers £1,000 a year excessive and that the correct figure should be £900.
What we are concerned with is that in any part of London where this category of property exists, it is possible to get from any local estate agent a list of innumerable houses and flats which are equally available to let at these figures. The Minister can be in no doubt that plenty of property is available at these


figures. I am not satisfied by his arguments about why he has to include them in the Bill. Our Amendment is extremely reasonable and I cannot understand why the Government are not prepared to accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
I thought that we were making extra good progress, though perhaps we slowed down slightly during the last two hours and a kind of locomotor ataxia began to work. As we have got a good way through the Bill, I think that the wisest thing to do is to retire now and prepare ourselves for a thorough and objective study of the remaining Amendments.
I began to feel that things were not very happy when the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), whose good temper I greatly respect, worked himself into a lather of enthusiastic and synthetic indignation.
It is a long time since we started our deliberations, and we have discussed many important Amendments and new Clauses, but during the last two hours there has been some repetition in the arguments and I think that the best thing to do is to adjourn now so that we can come back refreshed later in the day.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that this is a reasonable proposition. There are disadvantages in discussing highly important and complicated matters right through the night, and I think it would be as well to bring our deliberations to a conclusion now.
I was somewhat intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that one of the reasons for the Motion was the state of my hon. Friend's temper. My hon. Friend's temper is one of the most equable instruments that I have ever come across, and it is pleasant to know that it has been paid the singular compliment of determining the sittings of the House of Commons. For this additional reason I am happy to support the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE (WEEDON DEPOT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]

5.12 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army in the Chamber, because I share the concern which I am sure he has for the fact that the Adjournment debate has come on at such an early hour and that already dawn has crept across the windows above us. The hon. Gentleman does not have the pallid look that most of us have. He looks as though he has spent a good deal of time at the depots, one of which is the subject of this short debate.
The Weedon depot in my constituency was established in the early years of the Napoleonic Wars by an Act of Parliament dated 14th July, 1804, which provided compensation for landowners in the district. The depot comprises about 150 acres of high ground overlooking Weedon from the north, and in the early years it carried no less than 5,000 men and 200 horses on its establishment. It met demands for small arms, field ordnance and ammunition, and a distinctive feature of this establishment is the pavilion, a series of three large blocks built, history has it, as an inland residence for George III.
It served a very good purpose in a whole series of wars—the Napoleonic, the Crimean, the South African, and both the 1914 and 1939 world wars. It has a famous equitation school, which has been closed for some years, and it enjoys extremely good communications, lying as it does at the junction of the Grand Union Canal from which there are basins, the L.M.S. railway line, and the old Watling Street. I am sure that many people have happy and otherwise memories of this depot, particularly those who are older and made their service early in the Army.
There is a famous clock in the estabment which has been ticking away the hours since 1814. In a letter that I had from the hon. Gentleman on 21st May of this year, I was informed that it was proposed to put a preservation order on the clock and the building in which it stands as being of architectural and historic interest.
Lord Dilhorne was pressing the issue of the Weedon depot before I succeeded him in the byelection of 1962. I have had desultory correspondence with the Department since that date and meetings with the parish council. This is evidence of the continuing concern that there has been for many years, both in the depot and in Weedon itself, about the possible closure at one time and the closure which is now taking place. It is the delay which has occurred in this closure and in the reuse of this land and buildings to which I wish to refer.
Part was closed some years ago, and it was suggested in April last year that the remainder of the depot should close, but that some might need to be retained for storage, At that time other Government Departments were said not to be interested, although this was subject to confirmation at a later date nearer the final date of closure. The Department informed me that detailed work in connection with the title to the land, the plans and the planning consent for the subsequent use of the land, were in course of preparation and inquiry, but the result which has come from that has been negligible, as far as I can ascertain.
My concern was that as far as possible we should ensure that there was continuity of employment for about 1,000 people who lived in Weedon village. Not all of them by any means worked in the depot, but their families lived there, and I was anxious to ensure that the reuse of the depot for non-military purposes should be phased over a period of years coincident with the closure of the depot. In this way I hoped that one would see alternative employment offered to those whose employment would terminate as sections of the depot were closed.
Various statements have been made on the question of the phasing of the closure of the depot. In the correspondence that I have had, at one time phrasing was acknowledged to be a possible solution and at other times it was said that phasing was not possible. It is this uncertainty and changing opinion which has concerned me. The land must have been considered as being possible for sale on a phased basis, because it was offered to the county council at one stage, and to the rural district

council—in whose area the depot stands—for housing purposes. The county council said that it was interested in the old school of equitation, standing on the A.45 road, for civil defence purposes, and that part of the site might well be suitable for a highways sub-depot.
From June 1963 until March the following year, there were no developments at all, and my correspondence shows a complete blank, although I made inquiries from time to time. On 24th March I had a letter which seemed to confirm the indecision and the changing of plans which had occurred. It was a further nine months before I had a subsequent letter from the Department, on 2nd December of last year.
The formal closing ceremony was held on 16th February of this year. It is two-and-a-half years since I became involved in this question. Disposal plans have never been clarified; in fact, they are not clarified today, and we have this large area of land, suitable for a variety of purposes—with many good buildings, suited for many uses, standing empty in most cases. They are substantial buildings, some of ground and some of ground and first-floor construction, with concrete first floors, eminently suitable for storage and industrial purposes. Because of the disuse which has now developed, security measures have had to be taken, and these have recently had to be increased because of the pilfering of lead, copper and brass from the buildings. The site is suitable for redevelopment, warehouse storage and industrial purposes. There must be a substantial financial loss in the way in which this matter has been handled, certainly a loss of rateable value for the local authority, although it is clear that the War Department has, in recent years, made contributions to rate funds.
I emphasise that Weedon has been almost completely dependent on the depot. This is clearly indicated by the population figures. In 1801, before the depot was built, the population of the village was 75; in 1831, when it had been completely developed and was in regular use, it was about 1,500; ten years later it had gone up to about 2,200, of which over 800 were employed in the depot itself. The population today is about 2,000. I do not want to over-emphasise, but I do make the point of


the awful uncertainty in the village in recent years, the difficulty of knowing that one's job will be lost, but not knowing when, not knowing whether other employment will be offered or whether it will be suitable, and not knowing whether to take employment nearby or to move. If one moves, this may mean moving out of one's council house or rented property or selling one's own house.
In these circumstances, it has not been easy for people wishing to sell to find a ready sale for their property. About 33 of the old employees of the depot are now taken daily to the large ordnance establishment at Bicester, about 33 miles away. It is elderly people who are doing this, those who have a few years to go before they retire. This is not a very satisfactory arrangement, but it is certainly the least which could have been done for these people.
I think that there is strong evidence that the Department has been guilty of a disregard of personal problems of its employees and their families. There have been no efforts to provide alternative uses for the depot and subsequent re-employment for those discharged who have relied on the employment which the depot has engendered. There has been no phased release of the depot for uses or redevelopment and, apparently, no recognition of the financial implications. The screen of explanation which I note in the correspondence is quite transparent. It can be seen through when read together. One can see that the delays in the closure have been deliberate in order to accustom people to the idea of the closure and its ultimate reluctant acceptance.
I am glad to have had the opportunity of bringing this matter before the House, and I look forward to the Under-Secretary of State's reply. I question the wider application of this type of problem and question to what extent it is relevant to depots other than the one which is the subject of this debate.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) for initiating this debate. I had to be here this evening anyway. Unless an Adjournment debate which concerns me

is raised a Minister in my office tends to find that he is called upon to address the House in February and must then wait until February of the following year before anything happens so that he can speak again.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had been in correspondence with my Department for the last two-and-a-half years. It must have been a matter of hours after his election to Parliament that he first wrote to us about the Ordnance Depot at Weedon. His predecessor had been in correspondence with us prior to then.
I will not attempt to deny that there has been a certain amount of uncertainty for the employees of the depot and that the town of Weedon depends on the depot—in all probability it would not have been established had the depot not been placed there over 100 years ago. Having looked back over the documents, I am afraid that I am tonight defending my predecessors of the former Administration rather than defending any actions of the last six or so months.
There has not been anything that the Department could have done in this respect to get rid of that uncertainty and to make a great speed up in the disposal of this depot. In this connection, I will, first, say a few general words about the position of Defence Department lands and the way in which Weedon fits into the situation. I am aware of the need to release surplus Defence Department lands so that more productive use may be made of them as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman said that at Weedon we were having to take security measures and that there was a financial loss involved. This is true and that amount must be carried on the Defence Vote. It is in our interest, therefore, to dispose of any land which we do not require as soon as possible.
Weedon is a good example—considering the way in which, this matter has dragged on for some time—of the problems involved for any Government Department in disposing of substantial pieces of land or accommodation. Buying a house seems to the layman a simple enough transaction. None of us quite understands why it takes solicitors so long to conduct what appears to be such a simple undertaking. The delay is, of course, due to the permanent nature of


land compared with other forms of property.
For the Ministry of Defence in particular, the procedure for the disposal is, first, that the Department must ensure that there is no other Government Department which wants to use any land which is surplus to requirements. A procedure covering the circulation of other Departments with the details is specifically laid down. This takes time. Specifications and details of the land are supplied and a preliminary bid is put forward. The other Department must look at the property and determine whether it is suitable for the purpose for which it is required. The Department may then have to look into the question of whether it will get planning permission. In some cases this can delay matters for a considerable time, particularly if the other Department is the Home Office, which wants the land for use as a prison. In such a case there may be long arguments and discussions in the area, public inquiries held and so on before the matter is finalised.
There is, therefore, often a great delay before property of this kind can be disposed of, although that delay is not the fault of the other Department. It is inevitable that when one must make absolutely certain that there is no other Governmental use for the land and go through the necessary procedures, a considerable time will elapse, particularly since, in addition, before we can go any further we must take into account the interests of former owners, especially when we are dealing with agricultural land.
It is also the task of the Department when disposing of surplus land to ensure that it is properly utilised. Whether or not it will be used by another Government Department, before we can take any further steps in its disposal we must get planning permission so that we know the purposes for which the land can be used. This is essential because till we get planning consent for the land it is impossible to fix any value for it. It is not till we get agreement of the planning authority that we can fix a value for it.
There are other difficulties as well, particularly over agricultural land or land with a large agricultural element in it.

Under the post-Crichel Down procedure we have to communicate with the previous owners of the land, and sometimes protracted negotiations take place with the previous owners, who sometimes decide not to acquire it, when we can carry on with the procedure of disposing of it. But this does often hold up disposal of land for quite considerable periods.
We have made a slight change in the disposal of land in the last six months or so, and we want to give greater opportunity to local authorities to say whether they are prepared to take over the land, and negotiate sales to them by private treaty. Some are disposed to do this. It may be preferred to sell the land by auction or by tender.
But here again, if we negotiate for sale to a local authority by private treaty there must be the consent of other Departments about the future use of the land—the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Transport or whichever Department may be interested or concerned with the type of development the local authority may have in mind. These consultations do frequently tend to hold up disposal of land. So we can understand that quite a long time is spent in dealing with other Government Departments, dealing with the previous owners under the post-Crichel Down procedure in respect of agricultural land, and in endeavouring to get the planning permission from the planning authority involved. All these procedures are necessary in the disposal of land, and I make no criticism of other Departments or of local authorities or indeed of anyone, but the procedures all too often take a very long time to carry through, and it is not till all this is done that one can put the land up for auction or tender if it is to be disposed in that way.
It is against this background that I will now turn to the depot at Weedon with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. The decision to close the depot was made in January 1961 and the hon. Gentleman's predecessor in the representation of his constituency was informed of that straightaway. We were able to announce that we hoped to vacate it by April 1964, but then in January 1963 it was decided to retain part of the depot for a further six years, and the hon. Member was, of course, informed of that at the time. The


reason for this was simply that we had a very large amount of stocks in the depot which it was impossible to get rid of all at once without completely knocking the bottom out of the market, and we proposed to keep the depot for a few more years, releasing the stocks gradually, otherwise we should have got virtually nothing for them. In 1964 we were able to dispose of them and at a reasonable price. This put us back in the position that we were able to dispose of the whole site. This was another factor which held matters up, but then, as the hon. Member said, we were able eventually to close the depot on 28th February, 1965, and the hon. Member was present at the closing ceremony.
In September, 1962, we circulated to other Departments the fact that it would be closed, but the difficulty was we had no response at that time, the main difficulty being that the closing date announced was too far ahead for them; they were not prepared to make proposals for using the land. Despite that, in July, 1963, which was the period when the hon. Member said it seemed no progress was being made at all, we started discussions with the local planning authority to get agreement for the future use of the site, and those discussions went on quite a long time. Again, I make no criticism of the planning authority about this. I simply state the fact. It was not until September, 1964, that we were able to decide, with planning permission, confirmed shortly afterwards, that we could put the depot on the redundant list.
The availability of the depot was again circulated to other Government Departments in September, 1964, six months before the closure. This was a more practical date as far as our Department was concerned. Now we and the other Departments were able to look at it in the knowledge that the areas would certainly be available at the end of the six months period.
I agree that it would have been desirable to provide for continuity of employment. We did look at various suggestions to see whether we could sell off parts of the depot gradually, so that a continuity of jobs could be provided in the depot. Meetings were held on

the subject but eventually it was found not to be possible for a variety of reasons. One was that had we sold off parts of the depot, it might have prejudiced the total income that the Department would have gained from the sale of the depot intact.
In addition, there were great difficulties because the services for the depot are one and it would have been costly to have split them to make it possible to sell parts of the buildings, or parts of the area, and still retain other parts for Government use. From the estate management point of view, it was impossible to split up the area into smallholdings with Government occupation still of part. We did look at all the possibilities with the desire of keeping a number of jobs going, but it was found to be impossible.
We are now in that position where the land will, in due course, be available for agricultural use and part for housing purposes. I understand that the local authority does not wish to acquire the land for housing development. But we cannot get on with disposal of these pieces of land until we have dealt with the main problem of the depot itself. In September last year the circular went out, as I said, to Government departments and, although no decision has yet been finally reached, I am authorised by the Minister of Public Building and Works to say that his department will probably wish to use the depot in the future. I cannot tell the hon. Member more at this moment but hope to be able to let him know more details soon when the decision has been made. When the future of the depot proper has been decided, we shall seek to dispose of the land which is purely agricultural as soon as possible. But, as I have said, we cannot decide that until the future of the depot has been decided and we know the precise boundaries of the other land that will be available for residential and agricultural purposes.
I am, in this case, really defending my predecessors more than myself. This has been a difficult and a long lasting problem but I doubt whether it could have been dealt with at a much greater speed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Six o'clock a.m.